# Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?



## kaz

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.  

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


----------



## TheOldSchool

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Well if I could convince the left to drop gun control I would.

*



			I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
		
Click to expand...

*
^ That's the elephant in the room


----------



## kaz

TheOldSchool said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I could convince the left to drop gun control I would.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> ^ That's the elephant in the room
Click to expand...


They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...


----------



## ba1614

The answer is obvious, ban responsible law abiding citizens from owning them.


----------



## PredFan

You had to ask that?


----------



## Pete7469

The average bed wetter on this board is brainwashed into believeing more laws are what's needed. They're obviously stupid of course, and are just regurgitating what they're programmed with.

The people who manipulate these mindless little drones of course know damn well these laws don't work, nor do they want them too. They want the chaos and sensational violence being waged in order to continue to promote more ineffective laws until ultimately they can pass disarmament legislation.

That's the ultimate goal of course. The sociopaths don't want the herd to be able to resist when the time comes too cull them.

The funny part is that the bed wetters would likely be the first to go, since they're largely useless for anything beyond interfering with productive people.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh


----------



## Steven_R

The first story in the Bible after the expulsion from paradise is about a guy killing his brother with a rock. The gun is just a tool. Ban it, somehow get rid of them from every hand, and we'll still be killing each other over trivial nonsense and greed and lust. 

It's not a problem with the tool, but the hand behind the tool. It's just easier to pretend it's the tool's fault when something goes pear-shaped.


----------



## ClosedCaption

KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh



Actually if you read the op, I didn't ask anyone about "drafting a bill." I asked them to explain their plan.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!



I'm not sure what that means.


----------



## Plasmaball

Donuts and clowns...


----------



## RDD_1210

A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime. 

We can certainly start there.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you read the op, I didn't ask anyone about "drafting a bill." I asked them to explain their plan.
Click to expand...


What plan?  A plan to make law?  Like...a bill?


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't...

You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.

So you and liberals both have something in common


----------



## velvtacheeze

Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.


----------



## RDD_1210

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.



Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
Click to expand...


My answer is not to do nothing, it's to undo the laws prohibiting people from having the means to defend themselves.  Right now our laws prevent honest people form having guns and do virtually nothing to stop criminals.  The people who were shot at the Navy Yard cared about their careers if they were caught breaking the law.  That's what stopped them from having a gun to defend themselves.

So once again you're wrong, I would not do nothing.


----------



## martybegan

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.


----------



## kaz

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.



That's not an answer, what about reading the op and directly answering the question.


----------



## Pete7469

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

Our plan is simple. Allow people to defend themselves from sociopathic killers. Make sure people are trained to safely and effectively use weapons.


----------



## martybegan

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.



Then move there you anti-american troll asshole.


----------



## kaz

RDD_1210 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
Click to expand...


Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.


----------



## RDD_1210

martybegan said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.
Click to expand...


Didn't realize people were being slaughtered daily with books and websites. But other than that, good analogy.


----------



## RDD_1210

martybegan said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then move there you anti-american troll asshole.
Click to expand...


I fucking called this canned response from a mile away. You sheep are all the same.


----------



## RDD_1210

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
Click to expand...


I answered on the last page. You ignored it. Not my fault.


----------



## ClosedCaption

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.



This is where they will do their famous routine called: If a law hasn't stopped something 100% then its a waste of time


----------



## ClosedCaption

RDD_1210 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
Click to expand...


Right on the money.


----------



## ba1614

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.



Again, take out the progressive Utopias of gun control like Chicago and Detroit out of the equation and American gun crime stats are in line with the rest of the planet.


----------



## Steven_R

RDD_1210 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't realize people were being slaughtered daily with books and websites. But other than that, good analogy.
Click to expand...


Let's say you get your way and guns are registered which has invariably led to outrght banned because governments don't keep lists unless they intended to use them. Then what? I'm not giving up my guns, so that means someone is going to have to come and take them. Are you willing to kick in my door or will you just send other people to take the risk?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Pete7469 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Our plan is simple. Allow people to defend themselves from sociopathic killers. Make sure people are trained to safely and effectively use weapons.
Click to expand...


By....doing nothing.  Like I said.  You and those awful awful liberals both have something in common.  Liberals don't know what to do and you say do nothing.


----------



## Yurt

ClosedCaption said:


> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!



i've asked you for a suggestion and you have yet to give one


----------



## ClosedCaption

ba1614 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, take out the progressive Utopias of gun control like Chicago and Detroit out of the equation and American gun crime stats are in line with the rest of the planet.
Click to expand...


Ahahaha, translation: how about we fudge the numbers and it will look great


----------



## ClosedCaption

Yurt said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've asked you for a suggestion and you have yet to give one
Click to expand...


Following your lead sweet cheeks


----------



## Yurt

notice how the liberals who responded did not offer any suggestions, rather, just mocked the thread

FACT:  liberals don't have a plan, just fear mongering and rabid anti gun nut rants, but no plans


----------



## Yurt

ClosedCaption said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've asked you for a suggestion and you have yet to give one
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Following your lead sweet cheeks
Click to expand...


when did you ask me for a suggestion?

oh wait, you didn't liar.


----------



## kaz

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered on the last page. You ignored it. Not my fault.
Click to expand...


Seriously?   You think this addresses the question?



RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



There are so many problems with your post.  I didn't ask for a first step.  That it would allow gun owners to "own anything" actually is not true unless you undo a bunch of laws and address carrying them.  Having a gun at home's not going to help you when the shooting starts.  

Most of all, you addressed legal ownership, not illegal ownership.  You didn't address the main question at all.



kaz said:


> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work


----------



## RDD_1210

ba1614 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, take out the progressive Utopias of gun control like Chicago and Detroit out of the equation and American gun crime stats are in line with the rest of the planet.
Click to expand...


False.


----------



## RDD_1210

Steven_R said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't realize people were being slaughtered daily with books and websites. But other than that, good analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are registered which has invariably led to outrght banned because governments don't keep lists unless they intended to use them. Then what? I'm not giving up my guns, so that means someone is going to have to come and take them. Are you willing to kick in my door or will you just send other people to take the risk?
Click to expand...


Holy fucking leap you're taking there. Who said anything about taking them. Was your car taken away when you registered it?


----------



## RDD_1210

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered on the last page. You ignored it. Not my fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?   You think this addresses the question?
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many problems with your post.  I didn't ask for a first step.  That it would allow gun owners to "own anything" actually is not true unless you undo a bunch of laws and address carrying them.  Having a gun at home's not going to help you when the shooting starts.
> 
> Most of all, you addressed legal ownership, not illegal ownership.  You didn't address the main question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Which part of my response didn't you like? Because you certainly didn't respond to anything I actually suggested. 

And just like I thought, this is a troll thread started by someone who has ZERO interest in actual discussion. 

How naive of me to even think that was possible.


----------



## velvtacheeze

kaz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
Click to expand...


How many massacres were carried out by attacking people with marijuana?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



The problem there is, the state and federal government have a hiant backlog of individuals that need to be added to the systems now. How are they going to manage registering EVERY gun out there? What about those who don't comply? Home searches for weapons?

On top of that, what stops a criminal from stealing someone elses guns? Or paying another "blue collar" criminal to obtain the weapons for a fee? 

It's a noble and grand idea, but the implications of it dont hold up. There is no way to register ALL guns. My father in law, who hunts religiously, owns several from long before any of these registrations were necessary. He's not alone either. It solves nothing. Mostly because the state/fed cant handle the job they have now, who is going to do the work to administer this grand idea?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

velvtacheeze said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many massacres were carried out by attacking people with marijuana?
Click to expand...


Your argument is invalid. But you're LOLberal, so we understand.


----------



## Steven_R

RDD_1210 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't realize people were being slaughtered daily with books and websites. But other than that, good analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are registered which has invariably led to outrght banned because governments don't keep lists unless they intended to use them. Then what? I'm not giving up my guns, so that means someone is going to have to come and take them. Are you willing to kick in my door or will you just send other people to take the risk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy fucking leap you're taking there. Who said anything about taking them. Was your car taken away when you registered it?
Click to expand...


We're not talking about cars. We're talking about guns and everytime there has been registration it had led to some form of confiscation and outlawing ownership. They did just that in New Jersey and California by just wanting registration of AR-15s and then came by a few years later and had a list of who actually owned them after those rifles in specific configurations were made illegal.

I'm not taking anyone's word that all government wants is a list but will never do anything with said list.


----------



## RDD_1210

TakeAStepBack said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem there is, the state and federal government have a hiant backlog of individuals that need to be added to the systems now. How are they going to manage registering EVERY gun out there? What about those who don't comply? Home searches fgor weapons?
> 
> On top of that, what stops a criminal from stealing someone elses guns? Or paying another "blue collar" criminal to obtain the weapons for a fee?
> 
> It's a noble and grand idea, but the implications of it dont hold up. There is no way to register ALL guns. My father in law, who hunts religiously, owns several from long before any of these registrations were necessary. He's not alone either. It solves nothing. Mostly because the state/fed cant handle the job they have now, who is going to do the work to administer this grand idea?
Click to expand...


It's certainly not an overnight fix and would take some time to see the effectiveness, but if you make the penalty stiff enough by just being found to be in possession of an unregistered gun I think you would convince a lot of people to not take the chance and just register their weapons. If you can highlight that no further restrictions will be placed on gun types, clip size, etc...that responsible gun owners can own then you just may be able to get support from the NRA and those who preach responsible gun ownership.


----------



## Yurt

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



thanks for providing a plan.

however, your plan would not work.  how do conduct a background check of a private party selling a gun to a friend?  currently crimes and deaths have been committed even when a background check is done.  it does help, but is not foolproof.  

what would registration solve?  if i sell my gun to person X, and they use it for a crime, why should i be responsible?  a store is not responsible for a dui when someone gets drunk and drives.


----------



## Pete7469

martybegan said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then move there you anti-american troll asshole.
Click to expand...


That's really where I'm at with all the bed wetter parasites.

They love regurgitating this bullshit about how great things are everywhere else the "progressive" bullshit has been enacted.

Well then you fucksticks are coordially invited to get your stupid asses the fuck out of our country. Can we not have JUST ONE fucking country on earth where you assholes can't dictate what we own, how much money we can have, who we worship, or how we celebrate holidays? Can't you disgusting little maggots just fuck off for a while?


----------



## RDD_1210

Steven_R said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are registered which has invariably led to outrght banned because governments don't keep lists unless they intended to use them. Then what? I'm not giving up my guns, so that means someone is going to have to come and take them. Are you willing to kick in my door or will you just send other people to take the risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fucking leap you're taking there. Who said anything about taking them. Was your car taken away when you registered it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about cars. We're talking about guns and everytime there has been registration it had led to some form of confiscation and outlawing ownership. They did just that in New Jersey and California by just wanting registration of AR-15s and then came by a few years later and had a list of who actually owned them after those rifles in specific configurations were made illegal.
> 
> I'm not taking anyone's word that all government wants is a list but will never do anything with said list.
Click to expand...


How about this, when the government decides to use that list to confiscate all the guns of every American, you let me know and I'll personally fight by your side to prevent that. But you're rejecting suggestions based upon insane what-ifs that any sane person knows will never happen.


----------



## martybegan

RDD_1210 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fucking leap you're taking there. Who said anything about taking them. Was your car taken away when you registered it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about cars. We're talking about guns and everytime there has been registration it had led to some form of confiscation and outlawing ownership. They did just that in New Jersey and California by just wanting registration of AR-15s and then came by a few years later and had a list of who actually owned them after those rifles in specific configurations were made illegal.
> 
> I'm not taking anyone's word that all government wants is a list but will never do anything with said list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about this, when the government decides to use that list to confiscate all the guns of every American, you let me know and I'll personally fight by your side to prevent that. But you're rejecting suggestions based upon insane what-ifs that any sane person knows will never happen.
Click to expand...


I have a feeling you would pussy out and begin sucking government dick the second they come to your door.


----------



## Steven_R

I'm rejecting registration based on what history has shown government does with registration. It's not some insane what-if when it's happened time and again.


----------



## RDD_1210

Yurt said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for providing a plan.
> 
> however, your plan would not work.  how do conduct a background check of a private party selling a gun to a friend?  currently crimes and deaths have been committed even when a background check is done.  it does help, but is not foolproof.
Click to expand...

The private parties could go to a licensed dealer who is authorized to do background checks and pay a small fee for that dealer to authorize the sale and transfer pending a background check



> what would registration solve?  if i sell my gun to person X, and they use it for a crime, why should i be responsible?  a store is not responsible for a dui when someone gets drunk and drives.



It would make it harder to legally purchase a gun if you have a questionable history if you had to register it after getting a background check.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

RDD_1210 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem there is, the state and federal government have a hiant backlog of individuals that need to be added to the systems now. How are they going to manage registering EVERY gun out there? What about those who don't comply? Home searches fgor weapons?
> 
> On top of that, what stops a criminal from stealing someone elses guns? Or paying another "blue collar" criminal to obtain the weapons for a fee?
> 
> It's a noble and grand idea, but the implications of it dont hold up. There is no way to register ALL guns. My father in law, who hunts religiously, owns several from long before any of these registrations were necessary. He's not alone either. It solves nothing. Mostly because the state/fed cant handle the job they have now, who is going to do the work to administer this grand idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's certainly not an overnight fix and would take some time to see the effectiveness, but if you make the penalty stiff enough by just being found to be in possession of an unregistered gun I think you would convince a lot of people to not take the chance and just register their weapons. If you can highlight that no further restrictions will be placed on gun types, clip size, etc...that responsible gun owners can own then you just may be able to get support from the NRA and those who preach responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...


OK, that's a partial answer to my questions. What are we going to do about the giant elephant in the room? The administrative work to actually get all therse arms registered, along with all offenders off the backlog for checks?

When NY passed the SAFE Act, there were over 60k offenders still waiting to be placed on the restrictions checks. That number is now much bigger, and on top of that, they now have a giant backlog for registering arms that are required to be so after the passage of the act.

It only sounds good. That's all this type of thing does. Further, it puts a giant load on administration of public employees. Where will the money come from to add the personel required to carry out all that work?

This is why it's just "shootin' the breeze" as it were.


----------



## martybegan

RDD_1210 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't realize people were being slaughtered daily with books and websites. But other than that, good analogy.
Click to expand...


Considering all are consitutional rights, your cavalier attitude about infringing on one should be translated to the others.

Repeal the 2nd amendment first, then you can talk about registration.


----------



## Pete7469

ClosedCaption said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Our plan is simple. Allow people to defend themselves from sociopathic killers. Make sure people are trained to safely and effectively use weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By....doing nothing.  Like I said.  You and those awful awful liberals both have something in common.  Liberals don't know what to do and you say do nothing.
Click to expand...


Again, BULLSHIT.

Rolling back your bullshit anti-gun policies is doing something proactive. It would mean sociopathic killers don't have free reign to slaughter people in confined areas. It would mean home owners can blow asshole thugs to hell when they kick down their door or climb through their windows. It would mean women could walk down the street without fear of rape.

You bed wetters want to do NOTHING, because passing ineffective laws accomplishes NOTHING.


----------



## Pete7469

martybegan said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about cars. We're talking about guns and everytime there has been registration it had led to some form of confiscation and outlawing ownership. They did just that in New Jersey and California by just wanting registration of AR-15s and then came by a few years later and had a list of who actually owned them after those rifles in specific configurations were made illegal.
> 
> I'm not taking anyone's word that all government wants is a list but will never do anything with said list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this, when the government decides to use that list to confiscate all the guns of every American, you let me know and I'll personally fight by your side to prevent that. But you're rejecting suggestions based upon insane what-ifs that any sane person knows will never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a feeling you would pussy out and begin sucking government dick the second they come to your door.
Click to expand...


He already sucks obozo dick, not much of a stretch.


----------



## RDD_1210

martybegan said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about cars. We're talking about guns and everytime there has been registration it had led to some form of confiscation and outlawing ownership. They did just that in New Jersey and California by just wanting registration of AR-15s and then came by a few years later and had a list of who actually owned them after those rifles in specific configurations were made illegal.
> 
> I'm not taking anyone's word that all government wants is a list but will never do anything with said list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this, when the government decides to use that list to confiscate all the guns of every American, you let me know and I'll personally fight by your side to prevent that. But you're rejecting suggestions based upon insane what-ifs that any sane person knows will never happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a feeling you would pussy out and begin sucking government dick the second they come to your door.
Click to expand...


Please share your sexual fantasies with someone else.


----------



## RDD_1210

martybegan said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't realize people were being slaughtered daily with books and websites. But other than that, good analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering all are consitutional rights, your cavalier attitude about infringing on one should be translated to the others.
> 
> Repeal the 2nd amendment first, then you can talk about registration.
Click to expand...


None of what I suggested prevents anyone responsible from owning a gun. 

Keep swinging slugger!


----------



## ClosedCaption

Yurt said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've asked you for a suggestion and you have yet to give one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Following your lead sweet cheeks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when did you ask me for a suggestion?
> 
> oh wait, you didn't liar.
Click to expand...


Yes, because this is your first day on this board and we've never met.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Pete7469 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Our plan is simple. Allow people to defend themselves from sociopathic killers. Make sure people are trained to safely and effectively use weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By....doing nothing.  Like I said.  You and those awful awful liberals both have something in common.  Liberals don't know what to do and you say do nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, BULLSHIT.
> 
> Rolling back your bullshit anti-gun policies is doing something proactive. It would mean sociopathic killers don't have free reign to slaughter people in confined areas. It would mean home owners can blow asshole thugs to hell when they kick down their door or climb through their windows. It would mean women could walk down the street without fear of rape.
> 
> You bed wetters want to do NOTHING, because passing ineffective laws accomplishes NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Ahh step 2.

Step 1 for all Conservatives: Be Anti...Anti whatever is happening

Step 2:  Get rid of the thing they are Anti about...

Step 3:  Swear that something good will come later but don't bother explaining just give promises


----------



## Bern80

RDD_1210 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
Click to expand...


Common sense?! There is exactly ZERO sense in focusing on the availability of an inanimate object as a means of preventing violence. You people who claim to be so interested in the death of innocents need to get your priorties straight. Do you know how many other inanimate objects there are in this country that are involved in more deaths than guns. Only about a dozen. Cars cause far more deaths, yet we don't feel the need to have a national referendum on the safety of cars or talk about banning them, or blame Ford motor company every time a drunk kills someone.

If it were true that guns cause violence and death then I should have been surrounded by violence and death from guns growing up. I grew up in a rural neighborhood in northern Minnesota. Well not very populace, almost everyone hunts, and has multiple guns. It is not an exaggeration to say I was probably within a half mile of hundreds of guns growing up. Yet no deaths, not even an accident, being surrounded by that many guns. By contrast some kid growing up in a ghetto may be surrounded by the same amount of firearms or maybe less and see death and gun violance all the time. If you notice the differene is not the guns. They are the constant. It's the environment and the people that are different. That is way focusing on guns does nothing to stop violence. Our country does not have a gun violence problem so much as it has a culture of violence problem. You need to focus on people to fix that. Not inanimate objects.


----------



## kaz

RDD_1210 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered on the last page. You ignored it. Not my fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?   You think this addresses the question?
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many problems with your post.  I didn't ask for a first step.  That it would allow gun owners to "own anything" actually is not true unless you undo a bunch of laws and address carrying them.  Having a gun at home's not going to help you when the shooting starts.
> 
> Most of all, you addressed legal ownership, not illegal ownership.  You didn't address the main question at all.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which part of my response didn't you like? Because you certainly didn't respond to anything I actually suggested.
> 
> And just like I thought, this is a troll thread started by someone who has ZERO interest in actual discussion.
> 
> How naive of me to even think that was possible.
Click to expand...


What I don't like about your response was you didn't answer the basic question.


----------



## kaz

velvtacheeze said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many massacres were carried out by attacking people with marijuana?
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with the question.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many massacres were carried out by attacking people with marijuana?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the question.
Click to expand...


No law stops anything 100%.  If that is the bar then no laws are needed at all


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> By....doing nothing.  Like I said.  You and those awful awful liberals both have something in common.  Liberals don't know what to do and you say do nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, BULLSHIT.
> 
> Rolling back your bullshit anti-gun policies is doing something proactive. It would mean sociopathic killers don't have free reign to slaughter people in confined areas. It would mean home owners can blow asshole thugs to hell when they kick down their door or climb through their windows. It would mean women could walk down the street without fear of rape.
> 
> You bed wetters want to do NOTHING, because passing ineffective laws accomplishes NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh step 2.
> 
> Step 1 for all Conservatives: Be Anti...Anti whatever is happening
> 
> Step 2:  Get rid of the thing they are Anti about...
> 
> Step 3:  Swear that something good will come later but don't bother explaining just give promises
Click to expand...


Ummm none of those are accurate and in fact more true of you.

YOU are the one who appears to be ANTI gun.

YOU are the one telling us to get rid of guns.

YOU are the on swearing there will be fewer deaths and less violence if we outlaw guns.


----------



## Yurt

ClosedCaption said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following your lead sweet cheeks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did you ask me for a suggestion?
> 
> oh wait, you didn't liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because this is your first day on this board and we've never met.
Click to expand...


cite where you asked me for a suggestion about how to reduce gun violence.

you won't, because you can't, because you never asked for one liar.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Bern80 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, BULLSHIT.
> 
> Rolling back your bullshit anti-gun policies is doing something proactive. It would mean sociopathic killers don't have free reign to slaughter people in confined areas. It would mean home owners can blow asshole thugs to hell when they kick down their door or climb through their windows. It would mean women could walk down the street without fear of rape.
> 
> You bed wetters want to do NOTHING, because passing ineffective laws accomplishes NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh step 2.
> 
> Step 1 for all Conservatives: Be Anti...Anti whatever is happening
> 
> Step 2:  Get rid of the thing they are Anti about...
> 
> Step 3:  Swear that something good will come later but don't bother explaining just give promises
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm none of those are accurate and in fact more true of you.
> 
> YOU are the one who appears to be ANTI gun.
> 
> YOU are the one telling us to get rid of guns.
> 
> YOU are the on swearing there will be fewer deaths and less violence if we outlaw guns.
Click to expand...


Wrong and you cant find any where I've said otherwise

Wrong and you cant find anywhere I've said otherwise

Wrong and you cant find anywhere I've said otherwise

Stop fighting strawmen


----------



## ClosedCaption

Yurt said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did you ask me for a suggestion?
> 
> oh wait, you didn't liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because this is your first day on this board and we've never met.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> cite where you asked me for a suggestion about how to reduce gun violence.
> 
> you won't, because you can't, because you never asked for one liar.
Click to expand...


Yes because this is your first day here and your opinion on guns have never been expressed


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many massacres were carried out by attacking people with marijuana?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No law stops anything 100%.  If that is the bar then no laws are needed at all
Click to expand...


Strawman, I never asked for 100%, it's a completely made up standard that isn't reasonably read into the question.


----------



## Yurt

RDD_1210 said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for providing a plan.
> 
> however, your plan would not work.  how do conduct a background check of a private party selling a gun to a friend?  currently crimes and deaths have been committed even when a background check is done.  it does help, but is not foolproof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The private parties could go to a licensed dealer who is authorized to do background checks and pay a small fee for that dealer to authorize the sale and transfer pending a background check
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what would registration solve?  if i sell my gun to person X, and they use it for a crime, why should i be responsible?  a store is not responsible for a dui when someone gets drunk and drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would make it harder to legally purchase a gun if you have a questionable history if you had to register it after getting a background check.
Click to expand...


i think that is an unreasonable burden, but it could work, eg, background checks and i can see the courts agreeing as you already have to do that when you buy a gun from an authorized dealer, iirc.

about registration, this would not deter criminals in the slightest.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No law stops anything 100%.  If that is the bar then no laws are needed at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman, I never asked for 100%, it's a completely made up standard that isn't reasonably read into the question.
Click to expand...


I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All. 

So, explain how gun control laws don't work.


----------



## Steven_R

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law stops anything 100%.  If that is the bar then no laws are needed at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, I never asked for 100%, it's a completely made up standard that isn't reasonably read into the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
Click to expand...


DC and Chicago have draconian gun laws, effectively banning guns outright. Both of those places are chockful of gun crime that shouldn't exist with those gun laws.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law stops anything 100%.  If that is the bar then no laws are needed at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, I never asked for 100%, it's a completely made up standard that isn't reasonably read into the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
Click to expand...


Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.

This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Steven_R said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, I never asked for 100%, it's a completely made up standard that isn't reasonably read into the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DC and Chicago have draconian gun laws, effectively banning guns outright. Both of those places are chockful of gun crime that shouldn't exist with those gun laws.
Click to expand...


they blame the gun 

and they say 

"they get the guns from other places legally or illegally and bring them here"

maybe so 

but if that is the case 

why doesnt  the *other place* have the same gun  problems


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh step 2.
> 
> Step 1 for all Conservatives: Be Anti...Anti whatever is happening
> 
> Step 2:  Get rid of the thing they are Anti about...
> 
> Step 3:  Swear that something good will come later but don't bother explaining just give promises
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm none of those are accurate and in fact more true of you.
> 
> YOU are the one who appears to be ANTI gun.
> 
> YOU are the one telling us to get rid of guns.
> 
> YOU are the on swearing there will be fewer deaths and less violence if we outlaw guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong and you cant find any where I've said otherwise
> 
> Wrong and you cant find anywhere I've said otherwise
> 
> Wrong and you cant find anywhere I've said otherwise
> 
> Stop fighting strawmen
Click to expand...


I'm not. I'm simply stating that which you claim about conservative is actually more indicative of your point of view.


----------



## hipeter924

Republicans can play with their guns, as Obama is not going to take them away. I never am going to own one, there is no sense in being so awash with guns that the US is one of the most violent nations on Earth.


----------



## Bern80

hipeter924 said:


> Republicans can play with their guns, as Obama is not going to take them away. I never am going to own one, there is no sense in being so awash with guns that the US is one of the most violent nations on Earth.



Read my earlier post. I was 'awash' in guns around me growing up, yet no one died or was ever hurt by them. The level of violence here or anywhere else has nothing to do with guns.


----------



## Steven_R

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns every have.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, I never asked for 100%, it's a completely made up standard that isn't reasonably read into the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
Click to expand...


You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.

They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it


----------



## Steven_R

DC and Chicago have draconian gun laws, all but outright banning legal gun ownership. Gun violence rates in those two cities is astronomically high. Given the strict guns laws why is there any gun violence in either place?

I mean, considering gun laws are so effective and everything.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Steven_R said:


> DC and Chicago have draconian gun laws, all but outright banning legal gun ownership. Gun violence rates in those two cities is astronomically high. Given the strict guns laws why is there any gun violence in either place?
> 
> I mean, considering gun laws are so effective and everything.



See Kaz?  

Now are you going to tell me again that I'm the one making up this argument above?


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...  

As for the question

It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.


Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive. 

Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.  

Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.

As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll take a crack at it. First I'm gonna need a little help. What do you define as 'working' gun laws?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Bern80 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll take a crack at it. First I'm gonna need a little help. What do you define as 'working' gun laws?
Click to expand...


Making a difference to curb gun violence


----------



## Steven_R

You can't have guns in DC or Chicago (without being juiced in, natch), but gun deaths are regular there.

Now, if the solution to gun violence is to say someone can't have guns, how can there possibly be gun violence in those cities?


----------



## Missourian

We keep getting the same canned answers spoon fed to the posters by their anti-gun masters.

These guys went through background checks.

Cho,  Joker,  Loughner,  Alexis.

Every one of them PASS a NICS federal background check.

Registration???  WTF?

We KNOW who bought the guns.  We know because they were background checked.

We have  Closed Caption running around waving her hands above her head yelling "I don't know what to do,  BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"

That's the absolutely WORST solution.

I'm no liberal,  but I'll tell you my plan.

Background check for private sales of handguns and semi-automatic centerfire long guns.

(I realize you gun grabbers likely have no idea what this means...look it up and educate yourselves.)

But NOT the same background check protocol as new purchases.

I should be able to call in myself give a persons name and get a background check and a confirmation number...I'll be responsible for the information gathering and the record keeping.

I'll get a signed bill of sale that I sold John Q. Smith of 1234 Frame St. my Ruger SR9C serial number 1234567890 on such and such date and here is the confirmation number of the background check.

If I choose,  I can turn that information over to my local Sheriffs department and be absolved of the burden of record keeping  or I can keep in in a file locked up with my firearms.

If the gun is used in a crime and the police come looking for it,  there is a paper trail.

But you aren't required to give the serial number of the firearm as part of the background check.


Everyone's main concerns are addressed.

Handguns,  the major contributor to gun crime and gun violence are being background checked,  and legal gun owners can still trade hunting rifles and shotguns without government looking over their shoulders.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Click to expand...


This is absolutely idiotic. With no other object would you propsose such moronic measures. Do you realize  the violence that does occur with firearms occurs with a mere fraction of the number of firearms that are out there.  I don't know if it's perception or what, but you seem to believe that most guns and gun owners are violent people when that simply isn't the case. The vast majority of guns are never used against another human being and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. You have not right to treat them as such.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Click to expand...


That's just incredibly stupid.

Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.

Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll take a crack at it. First I'm gonna need a little help. What do you define as 'working' gun laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making a difference to curb gun violence
Click to expand...


That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?


----------



## Missourian

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Click to expand...



So poor people can't defend themselves but rich people can.

Great plan.  

Ever hear of a poll tax?

It was a tax that disenfranchised poor voter by making damn sure they couldn't afford to exercise their constitutional right.

This would be the Second Amendment equivalent.

It wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny for 30 seconds.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Bern80 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll take a crack at it. First I'm gonna need a little help. What do you define as 'working' gun laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making a difference to curb gun violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be specific.  Less bullets going into peoples bodies


----------



## Steven_R

ClosedCaption said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making a difference to curb gun violence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be specific.  Less bullets going into peoples bodies
Click to expand...


It's already illegal to put bullets into bodies outside of very limited and specific circumstances.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Steven_R said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be specific.  Less bullets going into peoples bodies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to put bullets into bodies outside of very limited and specific circumstances.
Click to expand...


I know, thanks.


----------



## Steven_R

It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Steven_R said:


> It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.



I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Steven_R said:


> It's already illegal to shoot people. *Is one more law going to magically fix this? *We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.



See Kaz...Let me just requite what you said



kaz said:


> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, *you pulled that out of your ass.*
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.



Here's Steven making the same argument.  I promise you that I am not Steven and didn't make him say this.  Soooo, uhhhh


----------



## Missourian

Grampa Murked U said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly stupid.
> 
> Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.
> 
> Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.
Click to expand...


The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.

If they did,  this would be the route they would choose.

But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison,  this isn't fair."

Pretty much the same thing they say today.

The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.

They don't want to own a gun,  and they don't want anyone else to own one either.

That's the bottom line.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Grampa Murked U said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.
Click to expand...


Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up


----------



## Steven_R

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly okay with locking up violent criminals.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Missourian said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly stupid.
> 
> Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.
> 
> Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
> 
> If they did,  this would be the route they would choose.
> 
> But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison,  this isn't fair."
> 
> Pretty much the same thing they say today.
> 
> The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
> 
> They don't want to own a gun,  and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
> 
> That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...


You're right.  There is only one way to skin a cat.  Yep


----------



## Missourian

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up
Click to expand...



^See,  called that one...less than two minutes.


----------



## Steven_R

ClosedCaption said:


> You're right.  There is only one way to skin a cat.  Yep





Yet the prevailing thought seems to be that someone somewhere might possibly could maybe eventually possibly do something illegal, so we should make it as difficult as possible for the law abiding get guns in the first place.


----------



## Missourian

ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly stupid.
> 
> Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.
> 
> Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
> 
> If they did,  this would be the route they would choose.
> 
> But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison,  this isn't fair."
> 
> Pretty much the same thing they say today.
> 
> The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
> 
> They don't want to own a gun,  and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
> 
> That's the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is only one way to skin a cat.  Yep
Click to expand...


How many ways do you need?

The objective is a skinned cat...right?

You want to reduce gun crime...it's an epidemic...well then the solution is to skin the motherfucking cat,  not find 35 unique ways of doing it!

Put these criminals under the jail until just being in jail looks as good as freedom...and if you find a better way down the road,  we'll institute that.


----------



## TooTall

velvtacheeze said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try and use common sense here. "Why don't you move to Socialist Australia" is the response you should expect shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a non-answer.  Explain how when any kid can get unlimited pot, which is entirely against the law, gun laws are going to prevent criminals from getting guns which are everywhere inside and outside the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many massacres were carried out by attacking people with marijuana?
Click to expand...


The gangs in Chicago are killing dozens every week to get their share of the drug trade, be it MJ of other drugs.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Steven_R said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is only one way to skin a cat.  Yep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the prevailing thought seems to be that someone somewhere might possibly could maybe eventually possibly do something illegal, so we should make it as difficult as possible for the law abiding get guns in the first place.
Click to expand...


That's just your prevailing thought


----------



## ClosedCaption

Missourian said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
> 
> If they did,  this would be the route they would choose.
> 
> But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison,  this isn't fair."
> 
> Pretty much the same thing they say today.
> 
> The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
> 
> They don't want to own a gun,  and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
> 
> That's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is only one way to skin a cat.  Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many ways do you need?
> 
> The objective is a skinned cat...right?
> 
> You want to reduce gun crime...it's an epidemic...well then the solution is to skin the motherfucking cat,  not find 35 unique ways of doing it!
> 
> Put these criminals under the jail until just being in jail looks as good as freedom...and if you find a better way down the road,  we'll institute that.
Click to expand...


Yes the objective is a skinned cat that doesn't mean that your way is the only way to do it   That's where the saying comes from


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up
Click to expand...


WTF???

They've ALREADY committed a crime! Nows the chance to crack down on the fact that they committed it with a gun.


----------



## TooTall

hipeter924 said:


> Republicans can play with their guns, as Obama is not going to take them away. I never am going to own one, there is no sense in being so awash with guns that the US is one of the most violent nations on Earth.



I would guess that you don't have a 'Gun Free Zone' sign in your front yard, or do you?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> They've ALREADY committed a crime! Nows the chance to crack down on the fact that they committed it with a gun.
Click to expand...


mandatory minimums are good then?

I don't agree and I bet you don't either


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> They've ALREADY committed a crime! Nows the chance to crack down on the fact that they committed it with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mandatory minimums are good then?
> 
> I don't agree and I bet you don't either
Click to expand...


3 time offenders yes
Drug convictions no
Crimes committed with guns yes
Child molesters yes
Men who beat women yes
White collar crime no


----------



## ClosedCaption

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> They've ALREADY committed a crime! Nows the chance to crack down on the fact that they committed it with a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mandatory minimums are good then?
> 
> I don't agree and I bet you don't either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 time offenders yes
> Drug convictions no
> Crimes committed with guns yes
> Child molesters yes
> Men who beat women yes
> White collar crime no
Click to expand...


Ugh...I WANT TO agree with this list but I cant.  

Mandatory minimums take out the justice system completely kind of cookie cutter approach when life isn't cookie cutter.  Child molesters are the worst mofos to walk the earth and a Mandatory on them would be great but the rest....I cant there is too many scenarios for Mandatorys.


----------



## rightwinger

Register all firearms and do a background check at every transactiion

You sell a gun to a criminal or crazy, it is your ass


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Register all firearms and do a background check at every transactiion
> 
> You sell a gun to a criminal or crazy, it is your ass



So if you sell a car to someone we should come after you if they get a DUI?


----------



## Steven_R

Ideas are dangerous.

Register all books and do a background check at every transaction. 

You sell a book to a crazy or a criminal, it is your ass.


----------



## Immanuel

RDD_1210 said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem there is, the state and federal government have a hiant backlog of individuals that need to be added to the systems now. How are they going to manage registering EVERY gun out there? What about those who don't comply? Home searches fgor weapons?
> 
> On top of that, what stops a criminal from stealing someone elses guns? Or paying another "blue collar" criminal to obtain the weapons for a fee?
> 
> It's a noble and grand idea, but the implications of it dont hold up. There is no way to register ALL guns. My father in law, who hunts religiously, owns several from long before any of these registrations were necessary. He's not alone either. It solves nothing. Mostly because the state/fed cant handle the job they have now, who is going to do the work to administer this grand idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's certainly not an overnight fix and would take some time to see the effectiveness, but if you make the penalty stiff enough by just being found to be in possession of an unregistered gun I think you would convince a lot of people to not take the chance and just register their weapons. If you can highlight that no further restrictions will be placed on gun types, clip size, etc...that responsible gun owners can own then you just may be able to get support from the NRA and those who preach responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...


I realize this quoted post was from several pages back, but you sure seem to put a hell of a lot of undeserved faith in our elected officials.  What exactly have these thieves done to earn your trust?  I can't believe a thing they say, but you seem willing to give up the essence of your very freedoms to them.

Immie


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Register all firearms and do a background check at every transactiion
> 
> You sell a gun to a criminal or crazy, it is your ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you sell a car to someone we should come after you if they get a DUI?
Click to expand...


I will be perfectly happy if we get the same level of control over guns as we have over cars


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Register all firearms and do a background check at every transactiion
> 
> You sell a gun to a criminal or crazy, it is your ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you sell a car to someone we should come after you if they get a DUI?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will be perfectly happy if we get the same level of control over guns as we have over cars
Click to expand...


Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle


----------



## ClosedCaption

ClosedCaption said:


> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it



Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!


----------



## Vox

kaz said:


> .   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.



disarm the nation and repeal the 2ND Amendment


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making a difference to curb gun violence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be specific.  Less bullets going into peoples bodies
Click to expand...


Yes it does. As Steven pointed out, current laws against putting bullets into bodies don't seem to be helping. That's already illegal for the most part. As has also been pointed out, cities like New York, Chicago and D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws yet some of the highest rates of gun violence. On the other hand there actually is some research that suggest greater concentrations of guns held by law abiding citizens may result in less gun violence. I can tell you that's at least anecodtally true because there were literally hundreds of guns in the neigborhood I grew up in. No one was ever shot or even shot at in the 30+ years I've been alive. 

There is plenty of evidence to support that there is relatively little correlation between stricter gun laws and less gun violence. I would be nice though if people would just use basic common sense. If you're a criminal are you more or less liekly to target someone whom you know isn't allowed to have gun?


----------



## Vox

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> mandatory minimums are good then?
> 
> I don't agree and I bet you don't either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 time offenders yes
> Drug convictions no
> Crimes committed with guns yes
> Child molesters yes
> Men who beat women yes
> White collar crime no
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ugh...I WANT TO agree with this list but I cant.
> 
> Mandatory minimums take out the justice system completely kind of cookie cutter approach when life isn't cookie cutter.  Child molesters are the worst mofos to walk the earth and a Mandatory on them would be great but the rest...*.I cant there is too many scenarios for Mandatorys*.
Click to expand...


agree. and I don't agree on mandatory sentencing on sex crimes as well. With the system so derailed that innocent person can be convicted, just because he was not interested, therefore accused of "rape" - nope. no mandatory.


----------



## Missourian

ClosedCaption said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!
Click to expand...



I answered that already.

Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.

Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.

Gun control failure all around.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you sell a car to someone we should come after you if they get a DUI?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be perfectly happy if we get the same level of control over guns as we have over cars
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle
Click to expand...


I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check


----------



## LoneLaugher

OP...............I will answer your question if you answer 'yes' to this simple one first.

Do you really wish to prevent criminals from having access to firearms?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Bern80 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not very specific. Does a person defending themselves constitute violence? How are you going to tie decreased violence to a law as opposed to other factors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be specific.  Less bullets going into peoples bodies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. As Steven pointed out, current laws against putting bullets into bodies don't seem to be helping. That's already illegal for the most part. As has also been pointed out, cities like New York, Chicago and D.C. have some of the strictest gun laws yet some of the highest rates of gun violence. On the other hand there actually is some research that suggest greater concentrations of guns held by law abiding citizens may result in less gun violence. I can tell you that's at least anecodtally true because there were literally hundreds of guns in the neigborhood I grew up in. No one was ever shot or even shot at in the 30+ years I've been alive.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence to support that there is relatively little correlation between stricter gun laws and less gun violence. I would be nice though if people would just use basic common sense. If you're a criminal are you more or less liekly to target someone whom you know isn't allowed to have gun?
Click to expand...


Why aren't those current laws helping?  People intrinsically will not engage in the behavior if consequences are harmful.

This idea that no laws help anything because things still happen is only applied to guns.  No one says get rid of traffic lights because accidents still happen.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Missourian said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
Click to expand...


So KAZ...

Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.

What happened to Kaz?


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will be perfectly happy if we get the same level of control over guns as we have over cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check
Click to expand...


Again you would find that reasonable if you were selling someone your car? You think you should have to go through someones driving record and make the determinatin as to whether they should be allowed to own a car? I would prefer we take responsibility like adults in that your behavior is NOT my responsibility.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmm that would be the opposite of what you said. As we in fact don't go after the prior owner when someone behaves negligently with their vehicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you would find that reasonable if you were selling someone your car? You think you should have to go through someones driving record and make the determinatin as to whether they should be allowed to own a car? I would prefer we take responsibility like adults in that your behavior is NOT my responsibility.
Click to expand...


I think a seller has a responsibility to check the background of whom a gun is being sold to. If you knowingly sell to a criminal or fail to check...I would hold you responsible

There are no laws against selling cars to criminals. Selling your gun to a criminal is a different matter


----------



## Missourian

ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
Click to expand...



Do you think before you type?

What is a murder law?

Show me one.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Missourian said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think before you type?
> 
> What is a murder law?
> 
> Show me one.
Click to expand...


Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
Click to expand...


I think it's you that's mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Bern80 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's you that are mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?
Click to expand...


Yes!  So you're saying crimes and the punishments that come along with them aren't needed because criminals will commit crimes anyway and nothing will change that.

Thanks for repeating what I said verbatim.   Does that only apply to guns or is that across the board for Molesters, Murderers, rapist etc?  Or just guns?

KAZZ?!?!  Where you at buddy?


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it more like selling alchohol to a minor. It is the sellers responsibility to check
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you would find that reasonable if you were selling someone your car? You think you should have to go through someones driving record and make the determinatin as to whether they should be allowed to own a car? I would prefer we take responsibility like adults in that your behavior is NOT my responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think a seller has a responsibility to check the background of whom a gun is being sold to. If you knowingly sell to a criminal or fail to check...I would hold you responsible
> 
> There are no laws against selling cars to criminals. Selling your gun to a criminal is a different matter
Click to expand...


You're back pedaling righty. This wasn't about whether someone was a criminal. It is about what someoen _might_ do with what you sell them. That's really what we're worried about isn't it? In that respect the two are the same, yet your position is inconsistent. You would be for going after the person that sold a gun to someone who killed someone, yet you wold not be for going after the previous owner of a vehicle that was driven by drunk driver and killed someone.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is absolutely idiotic. With no other object would you propsose such moronic measures. Do you realize  the violence that does occur with firearms occurs with a mere fraction of the number of firearms that are out there.  I don't know if it's perception or what, but you seem to believe that most guns and gun owners are violent people when that simply isn't the case. The vast majority of guns are never used against another human being and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. You have not right to treat them as such.
Click to expand...


Noted.


----------



## candycorn

Grampa Murked U said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly stupid.
> 
> Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.
> 
> Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.
Click to expand...


I like your idea about punishment.  

We have a bigger problem than that though...  What's your idea?


----------



## candycorn

Missourian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So poor people can't defend themselves but rich people can.
> 
> Great plan.
> 
> Ever hear of a poll tax?
> 
> It was a tax that disenfranchised poor voter by making damn sure they couldn't afford to exercise their constitutional right.
> 
> This would be the Second Amendment equivalent.
> 
> It wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny for 30 seconds.
Click to expand...


Don't know about that; what's your plan to prevent another Sandy Hook?  Kevlar school uniforms?


----------



## candycorn

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this? We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offered a solution on the previous page but everyone is ignoring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "solution" is only a solution to how to lock more americans up
Click to expand...


I agree with grumps; if they commit a crime; you're gone for X number of years; no parole, no time off.  Soyanara!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
Click to expand...


You want an example of Gun Control laws not working? I give you Chicago and New York and Washington DC.


----------



## Missourian

ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think before you type?
> 
> What is a murder law?
> 
> Show me one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever
Click to expand...


Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?

Here is the Missouri Statute...



> *[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE]*       565.020.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.
> 
> 
> 2.  Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.



It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.

It does not keep people from committing murder,  though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment,  the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.

GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand,  has an entirely different purpose.

Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.

Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.

Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.

If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings,  then advocating more of the same,  like expanded background checks,  is ludicrous in the extreme.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Missourian said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think before you type?
> 
> What is a murder law?
> 
> Show me one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?
> 
> Here is the Missouri Statute...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE]*       565.020.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.
> 
> 
> 2.  Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.
> 
> It does not keep people from committing murder,  though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment,  the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.
> 
> GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand,  has an entirely different purpose.
> 
> Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.
> 
> Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.
> 
> Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.
> 
> *If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings,  then advocating more of the same,  like expanded background checks,  is ludicrous in the extreme*.
Click to expand...


So laws work but gun laws wont work because you say so?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?
> 
> Here is the Missouri Statute...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE]*       565.020.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.
> 
> 
> 2.  Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.
> 
> It does not keep people from committing murder,  though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment,  the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.
> 
> GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand,  has an entirely different purpose.
> 
> Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.
> 
> Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.
> 
> Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.
> 
> *If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings,  then advocating more of the same,  like expanded background checks,  is ludicrous in the extreme*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So laws work but gun laws wont work because you say so?
Click to expand...


You ask a question earlier and I answered, why are you ignoring that?


----------



## ClosedCaption

I acknowledge you answered, just going for clarity.  I guess that's a bad thing......to you


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> I acknowledge you answered, just going for clarity.  I guess that's a bad thing......to you



You ask for proof that gun control laws don't work, I gave you three specific examples. Yet you insist on doubling down on what does not work. There is compelling evidence that in this Country lax gun control laws, allowing concealed carry and passing self defense laws all bring murders and crime down. There is no evidence that stronger restrictions on law abiding citizens vis vie guns will have any other effect then increased crime rates.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly stupid.
> 
> Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.
> 
> Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your idea about punishment.
> 
> We have a bigger problem than that though...  What's your idea?
Click to expand...


Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.


----------



## Pheonixops

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



It would be virtually impossible to keep guns from criminals, unless they totally outlawed firearms of all types, confiscated them, and set up a virtual police state. The criminal element would probably be the only ones armed after that through black market sales. So in short, NO THANK YOU. We have enough, if not too many "gun laws" on the books already.

That's my Liberal answer...................


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Where did you go Closed Caption?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Well since the debate seems to have dried up guess I will go play a game, be back in a  bit to see if it resumes.


----------



## Ropey

> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?



Liberal mindspeak says that if you take the guns from everyone, then the criminals will not find any.



The criminals will always find guns. I mean, that's why they're criminals.


----------



## Pheonixops

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



Would you be in favor of "registration of all alcohol owners and background checks on ALL alcohol sales."? There were 11,078 gun murders and 10,228 drunk driving deaths in 2010. That's a pretty close statistic though both numbers were down. I understand that you want to keep gun deaths down and I'm sure people have a good counter-argument like; "Well people have to register their motor vehicles.", but I see it as a slippery slope especially with something that is part of our Bill of Rights.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ropey said:


> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal mindspeak says that if you take the guns from everyone, then the criminals will not find any.
> 
> 
> 
> The criminals will always find guns. I mean, that's why they're criminals.
Click to expand...


seems that doesnt work in the great gun ban utopia of the Uk


----------



## jon_berzerk

Pheonixops said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be virtually impossible to keep guns from criminals, unless they totally outlawed firearms of all types, confiscated them, and set up a virtual police state. The criminal element would probably be the only ones armed after that through black market sales. So in short, NO THANK YOU. We have enough, if not too many "gun laws" on the books already.
> 
> That's my Liberal answer...................
Click to expand...



no probabilities they would be the only ones armed


----------



## Ropey

jon_berzerk said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal mindspeak says that if you take the guns from everyone, then the criminals will not find any.
> 
> 
> 
> The criminals will always find guns. I mean, that's why they're criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seems that doesnt work in the great gun ban utopia of the Uk
Click to expand...


Yep.  They don't even allow most of their police to have guns. 



> The deaths of two female police constables have brought into focus the unarmed status of most British police. Why does Britain hold firm against issuing guns to officers on the beat?



Still, the criminals will find their guns even if the law abiding civilians and police don't have them.






http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398


----------



## Missourian

ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're boring me...please..try harder to be more clever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the purpose of a "murder law" to outline the PUNISHMENT for committing murder?
> 
> Here is the Missouri Statute...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[SIZE=+1]First degree murder, penalty--person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty. [/SIZE]*       565.020.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.
> 
> 
> 2.  Murder in the first degree is a class A felony, and the punishment shall be either death or imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor; except that, if a person has not reached his sixteenth birthday at the time of the commission of the crime, the punishment shall be imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole, or release except by act of the governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's purpose is to define murder and outline the punishment.
> 
> It does not keep people from committing murder,  though an argument may be made that the stricter the outlined punishment,  the greater a SECONDARY deterrent value out said punishment may be realized.
> 
> GUN CONTROL laws on the other hand,  has an entirely different purpose.
> 
> Their purpose is neither to define a crime or outline a punishment.
> 
> Their PRIMARY purpose is to reduce crime.
> 
> Gun control advocates are pushing more gun control laws on the basis of reducing these mass shootings.
> 
> *If gun control laws are failing at preventing or reducing mass shootings,  then advocating more of the same,  like expanded background checks,  is ludicrous in the extreme*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So laws work but gun laws wont work because you say so?
Click to expand...


Nope...they don't work because they don't work.

Here is the liberal plan.

Based on all these mass shooting perpetrated by guys who passed background checks,  our solution is to expand the background checks that didn't stop these guys from buying NEW guns from FFLs to private sales.

How stupid or deceitful does one have to be to even attempt to sell that bullshit to the American People?

What's the definition of insanity again?

I can't remember a mass shooting where the shooter used a gun that they purchased from a private party.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ropey said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal mindspeak says that if you take the guns from everyone, then the criminals will not find any.
> 
> 
> 
> The criminals will always find guns. I mean, that's why they're criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seems that doesnt work in the great gun ban utopia of the Uk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  They don't even allow most of their police to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deaths of two female police constables have brought into focus the unarmed status of most British police. Why does Britain hold firm against issuing guns to officers on the beat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, the criminals will find their guns even if the law abiding civilians and police don't have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BBC News - Why British police don?t have guns
Click to expand...


*Yep.  They don't even allow most of their police to have guns.*

oddly since the gun bans the criminals have gotten so violent 

that the UK police or at least special units have become armed 

they never had to be before the ban


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I was waiting for Closedcaption to claim that DC, Chicago and NYC all have gun violence cause their neighbors don't bar guns. 

I would then have pointed out that England which is basically on an Island can not control guns even though they banned them. That Russia has a super strict gun control and the highest murder and violence rate around, that South Africa bans firearms and still has a lot of murder and firearms violence and that Mexico bans all private ownership and is awash in gang shootings beheading and violence.

But you guys jumped the gun so to speak, LOL.


----------



## tehmouser

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Every one should have guns


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just incredibly stupid.
> 
> Deal with the fucking criminals not everyone else.
> 
> Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison for ANY crime (felony) committed while in posession of a firearm. Life if the weapon is stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your idea about punishment.
> 
> We have a bigger problem than that though...  What's your idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.
Click to expand...

Well, let's hear your idea.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your idea about punishment.
> 
> We have a bigger problem than that though...  What's your idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
Click to expand...


Enforce the laws we have. It is already illegal for mentally unstable people that are adjudged thus from having weapons. No one wants to do the paperwork or legal work to get the obviously crazy properly adjudged that way.

Improve mental health access and find someway to change the US perception that mental illness is not to be talked about or discussed.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforce the laws we have. It is already illegal for mentally unstable people that are adjudged thus from having weapons. No one wants to do the paperwork or legal work to get the obviously crazy properly adjudged that way.
> 
> Improve mental health access and find someway to change the US perception that mental illness is not to be talked about or discussed.
Click to expand...


Good idea.

Just out of curiosity how do you get around Dr./Patient confidentiality?  Not a loaded question; just wanting to to know how you do it.


----------



## jon_berzerk

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the laws we have. It is already illegal for mentally unstable people that are adjudged thus from having weapons. No one wants to do the paperwork or legal work to get the obviously crazy properly adjudged that way.
> 
> Improve mental health access and find someway to change the US perception that mental illness is not to be talked about or discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.
> 
> Just out of curiosity how do you get around Dr./Patient confidentiality?  Not a loaded question; just wanting to to know how you do it.
Click to expand...


*how do you get around Dr./Patient confidentiality*

the courts 

with in these matters it is usually closed to the public or sealed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the laws we have. It is already illegal for mentally unstable people that are adjudged thus from having weapons. No one wants to do the paperwork or legal work to get the obviously crazy properly adjudged that way.
> 
> Improve mental health access and find someway to change the US perception that mental illness is not to be talked about or discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.
> 
> Just out of curiosity how do you get around Dr./Patient confidentiality?  Not a loaded question; just wanting to to know how you do it.
Click to expand...


You don't have to, the Recent shooter was obviously sick and the cops knew it. from his behavior and his statements. There should have been something done to address his situation either by the local police or the navy.

As for your doctor BY LAW they are to report any threats you present to local authorities. Statements actions or things you display to them that make them believe you are a threat to self or others MUST be reported as far as I know that is the law in all States.


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's you that are mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So you're saying crimes and the punishments that come along with them aren't needed because criminals will commit crimes anyway and nothing will change that.
> 
> Thanks for repeating what I said verbatim.   Does that only apply to guns or is that across the board for Molesters, Murderers, rapist etc?  Or just guns?
> 
> KAZZ?!?!  Where you at buddy?
Click to expand...


Probably lots of things, but it ultimately comes down to the individual. If you're in a state of mind to even contemplate murder or rape your mind is probably in no condition to ponder the ramifications of those actions. You could even go to less agregeous crimes like smoking weed. Though it doesn't matter because violence with guns are what we're concerned with here. Laws are enacted to have punishments for breaking them. Whether it is also a deterent to committing that crime is inversely related to it's severity. That is the more sever the crime the less likely the punishment for committing it is likely to deter someone from committing it.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the laws we have. It is already illegal for mentally unstable people that are adjudged thus from having weapons. No one wants to do the paperwork or legal work to get the obviously crazy properly adjudged that way.
> 
> Improve mental health access and find someway to change the US perception that mental illness is not to be talked about or discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.
> 
> Just out of curiosity how do you get around Dr./Patient confidentiality?  Not a loaded question; just wanting to to know how you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to, the Recent shooter was obviously sick and the cops knew it. from his behavior and his statements. There should have been something done to address his situation either by the local police or the navy.
> 
> As for your doctor BY LAW they are to report any threats you present to local authorities. Statements actions or things you display to them that make them believe you are a threat to self or others MUST be reported as far as I know that is the law in all States.
Click to expand...


Doesn't sound all that effective in the 2nd part.  But anything helps I suppose.


----------



## Missourian

candycorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So poor people can't defend themselves but rich people can.
> 
> Great plan.
> 
> Ever hear of a poll tax?
> 
> It was a tax that disenfranchised poor voter by making damn sure they couldn't afford to exercise their constitutional right.
> 
> This would be the Second Amendment equivalent.
> 
> It wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny for 30 seconds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know about that; what's your plan to prevent another Sandy Hook?  Kevlar school uniforms?
Click to expand...



Good question...what gun control measure can keep someone from stealing a weapon and killing the legal owner of that weapon,  then going on a shooting spree?

Universal background checks?

Gun registrations?

This is why gun control is failing...everyone with half a brain can see that what they are selling isn't going to solve the problem they claim they are addressing.


----------



## Steven_R

ClosedCaption said:


> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!



Punish criminals. Let free men carry what they want where they want how they want when they want until they prove they are incapable of handling the responsibility.


----------



## candycorn

Missourian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So poor people can't defend themselves but rich people can.
> 
> Great plan.
> 
> Ever hear of a poll tax?
> 
> It was a tax that disenfranchised poor voter by making damn sure they couldn't afford to exercise their constitutional right.
> 
> This would be the Second Amendment equivalent.
> 
> It wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny for 30 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about that; what's your plan to prevent another Sandy Hook?  Kevlar school uniforms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good question...what gun control measure can keep someone from stealing a weapon and killing the legal owner of that weapon,  then going on a shooting spree?
> 
> Universal background checks?
> 
> Gun registrations?
> 
> This is why gun control is failing...everyone with half a brain can see that what they are selling isn't going to solve the problem they claim they are addressing.
Click to expand...


Good to know you have a plan...whatever it is.  Someday.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your idea about punishment.
> 
> We have a bigger problem than that though...  What's your idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
Click to expand...


I gave you my ideas. The sooner you realize Minority Report only exists in the land of make believe the better off you'll be.


----------



## hipeter924

Well most other countries go for gun regulation, as that isn't applicable in the US in most cases due to the constitution you are pretty much stuck. Would be better to establish voluntary gun free neighborhoods, as if laws will never be tough enough and the enforcement near impossible; you aren't going to get anywhere by telling gun owners 'you are dangerous' or to criminals 'please don't carry guns when you are on a stealing spree or drug dealing'.


----------



## Missourian

candycorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about that; what's your plan to prevent another Sandy Hook?  Kevlar school uniforms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question...what gun control measure can keep someone from stealing a weapon and killing the legal owner of that weapon,  then going on a shooting spree?
> 
> Universal background checks?
> 
> Gun registrations?
> 
> This is why gun control is failing...everyone with half a brain can see that what they are selling isn't going to solve the problem they claim they are addressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good to know you have a plan...whatever it is.  Someday.
Click to expand...



So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.


----------



## jon_berzerk

hipeter924 said:


> Well most other countries go for gun regulation, as that isn't applicable in the US in most cases due to the constitution you are pretty much stuck. Would be better to establish voluntary gun free neighborhoods, as if laws will never be tough enough and the enforcement near impossible; you aren't going to get anywhere by telling gun owners 'you are dangerous' or to criminals 'please don't carry guns when you are on a stealing spree or drug dealing'.



*Would be better to establish voluntary gun free neighborhoods*

i bet the bad guys would go along with that


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



80% of gun murders are committed by people killing people they know. 

I don't worry so much about the "Criminals" as much as I do the vast majority of you drooling idiots who have neither the training or judgement to own a gun.


----------



## Mac1958

.

I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.

Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.

.


----------



## candycorn

Missourian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question...what gun control measure can keep someone from stealing a weapon and killing the legal owner of that weapon,  then going on a shooting spree?
> 
> Universal background checks?
> 
> Gun registrations?
> 
> This is why gun control is failing...everyone with half a brain can see that what they are selling isn't going to solve the problem they claim they are addressing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know you have a plan...whatever it is.  Someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
Click to expand...


If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.  

So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforce the laws we have. It is already illegal for mentally unstable people that are adjudged thus from having weapons. No one wants to do the paperwork or legal work to get the obviously crazy properly adjudged that way.
> 
> Improve mental health access and find someway to change the US perception that mental illness is not to be talked about or discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.
> 
> Just out of curiosity how do you get around Dr./Patient confidentiality?  Not a loaded question; just wanting to to know how you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to, the Recent shooter was obviously sick and the cops knew it. from his behavior and his statements. There should have been something done to address his situation either by the local police or the navy.
> 
> As for your doctor BY LAW they are to report any threats you present to local authorities. Statements actions or things you display to them that make them believe you are a threat to self or others MUST be reported as far as I know that is the law in all States.
Click to expand...


And with our current laws the person can stalk and threaten their psychiatrist and nothing is done.  Then he can legally buy a gun and shoot up a theater.
Psychiatrist warned campus police about Aurora shooter a month before mass murder « Hot Air


----------



## Brain357

candycorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know you have a plan...whatever it is.  Someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
Click to expand...


Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed?  If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .



1) Complete and thorough background checks. 
2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. 
3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing. 
4) Required insurance for gun ownership.


----------



## Mac1958

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the response.

#2 could essentially be a death knell for the industry, which I suspect is the point.

How would you get guns out of the hands of criminals?

.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac1958 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> #2 could essentially be a death knell for the industry, which I suspect is the point.
> 
> How would you get guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, it would do what EVERY OTHER industry does.  Take responsibility.  

When the government started holding liquor stores responsible for selling to minors, guess what, they started carding.  

When they held tobacco companies responsible for kids smoking, guess what, they started enforcing the age limits.  

The reason why criminals HAVE guns is because the gun industry WANTS them to have them. 

Then they can go back to Nancy Lanza and scare her into stocking up like the Zombie Apocolypse is coming. 

If gun ownership was treated as a privilage instead of a "right", we'd have much more responsible gun ownership.


----------



## Mac1958

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> #2 could essentially be a death knell for the industry, which I suspect is the point.
> 
> How would you get guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it would do what EVERY OTHER industry does.  Take responsibility.
> 
> When the government started holding liquor stores responsible for selling to minors, guess what, they started carding.
> 
> When they held tobacco companies responsible for kids smoking, guess what, they started enforcing the age limits.
> 
> The reason why criminals HAVE guns is because the gun industry WANTS them to have them.
> 
> Then they can go back to Nancy Lanza and scare her into stocking up like the Zombie Apocolypse is coming.
> 
> If gun ownership was treated as a privilage instead of a "right", we'd have much more responsible gun ownership.
Click to expand...



So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?

.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac1958 said:


> [
> 
> So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?
> 
> .



Get them out of the hands of everyone else.  

Simple enough.  

Criminals have guns because EVERYONE ELSE has guns.  

In countries where they LIMIT who can have a gun- guess what- crooks don't have them.  

I mean, this is not really that complicated.

Oh, most gun deaths are NOT criminals shooting people.  

Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best"


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
Click to expand...


#2 just as soon as say car manufacturers are held financially responsible for car accidents by all drivers.

#4 is unconstitutional as well, ever hear of a poll tax?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Criminals have guns because EVERYONE ELSE has guns.
> 
> In countries where they LIMIT who can have a gun- guess what- crooks don't have them.
> 
> I mean, this is not really that complicated.
> 
> Oh, most gun deaths are NOT criminals shooting people.
> 
> Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best"
Click to expand...


Ya that works in England, South Africa , Russia and Mexico and a host of other Countries. Remind us how restrictive laws prevent criminals from having weapons again?


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #2 just as soon as say car manufacturers are held financially responsible for car accidents by all drivers.
> 
> #4 is unconstitutional as well, ever hear of a poll tax?
Click to expand...


Actually, all car owners are ALREADY required to get insurance in most states. so that isn't even an argument.  

Car manufacturers ARE held responsible for accidents caused by bad designs.  

I think that when you hold the gun store responsible for selling a shotgun to Aaron Alexis after he failed to pass a test for a rifle or handgun, there really ought to be some responsibility there.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, you just decline to say what you want.  Gun control laws work.  When that's said repubs will bring up murders in Australia as PROOF gun laws don't work.  Like gun control will prevent it All.
> 
> So, explain how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know its bad when they avoid Even an open ended question: Show me how gun control laws don't work.
> 
> They cant, but they are Anti so they have to be Anti- gun control even when they cant explain it
Click to expand...


You mean besides the Washington Navy Yard?  Newtown, Virginia Tech, the woman who was murdered in the parking lot by her "estranged" husband two miles from my office a few months ago?  All of them have in common that the victims followed your gun laws, the murderers didn't.

Ignoring your logic that you get to pass laws and it's our job to prove they don't work, not yours to prove they do, you still haven't answered the basic question.  If pot laws don't prevent every high schooler from gett as much pot as they want, how are gun laws gong to prevent criminals from getting a gun or anything else they can use to murder people?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #2 just as soon as say car manufacturers are held financially responsible for car accidents by all drivers.
> 
> #4 is unconstitutional as well, ever hear of a poll tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, all car owners are ALREADY required to get insurance in most states. so that isn't even an argument.
> 
> Car manufacturers ARE held responsible for accidents caused by bad designs.
> 
> I think that when you hold the gun store responsible for selling a shotgun to Aaron Alexis after he failed to pass a test for a rifle or handgun, there really ought to be some responsibility there.
Click to expand...


Except he did not fail any step of the process. 2 back ground checks were passed and as far as I know no weapon has ever been found to be defective.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
Click to expand...


Stupid pet tricks.  No one argued that.  The point is that gun laws PREVENT people from defending themselves.  Seriously, what is the point in that comment?  I have to prove that people would have guns in those cases?  Liberals say these pointless, completely illogical things all the time, it's your whole repertoire.  I don't get how you think you're the intelligent party.  Well, I guess I do since you don't grasp what's being said to you and rationally process it.



candycorn said:


> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...



Well, that kicks the can to the next generation since you've given an out for your lifetime, oh, we didn't do it long enough.  Sort of like the Obama presidency.   Five years?  Of course I know what I"m doing, it just wasn't long enough.

As for your point "as for the question," you didn't follow that by addressing the question.  The question is, if teenagers can get all the pot they want, how are gun laws going to prevent criminals from getting any guns, or anything else they can use to kill people?  You didn't actually address the question at all.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> Ya that works in England, South Africa , Russia and Mexico and a host of other Countries. Remind us how restrictive laws prevent criminals from having weapons again?



It works just fine in the United Kingdom.  There were only 38 gun homicides in 2011, and 93 gun suicides.  (Compared to 11,101 and 15,953 in the US).  

South Africa has about 6 million guns, ranking #17 in gun ownership.  So that's probably not a good comparison.  

Russia ranks at #9 in privately held guns with 12 million privately owned guns. So again, not a good comparison.  

Mexico has a right to bear arms, just like the US does, so not a good comparison. 

So I guess if you want to compare us to backwards, third world (or in the case of Russia, Second World) countries, we are doing well.  

Compared to other advanced industrial democracies, like the UK, Germany or Japan, not so much.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. *Is one more law going to magically fix this? *We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Kaz...Let me just requite what you said
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, *you pulled that out of your ass.*
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's Steven making the same argument.  I promise you that I am not Steven and didn't make him say this.  Soooo, uhhhh
Click to expand...


What the are you talking about?  You are making no logical sense at all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ya that works in England, South Africa , Russia and Mexico and a host of other Countries. Remind us how restrictive laws prevent criminals from having weapons again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works just fine in the United Kingdom.  There were only 38 gun homicides in 2011, and 93 gun suicides.  (Compared to 11,101 and 15,953 in the US).
> 
> South Africa has about 6 million guns, ranking #17 in gun ownership.  So that's probably not a good comparison.
> 
> Russia ranks at #9 in privately held guns with 12 million privately owned guns. So again, not a good comparison.
> 
> Mexico has a right to bear arms, just like the US does, so not a good comparison.
> 
> So I guess if you want to compare us to backwards, third world (or in the case of Russia, Second World) countries, we are doing well.
> 
> Compared to other advanced industrial democracies, like the UK, Germany or Japan, not so much.
Click to expand...


Except with the ban on firearms England saw a major increase in homicides and gun violence, further until someone is convicted they do not report a murder as a murder. meaning gang violence is not reported or unsolved cases.

The countries I listed all have bans on guns and fail miserably at stopping gun violence. You can try to justify your excuses anyway you want. the facts are that more guns in law abiding hands means less crime over all. Studies are coming out now proving the point. Compelling evidence to support the claim.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I think that when you hold the gun store responsible for selling a shotgun to Aaron Alexis after he failed to pass a test for a rifle or handgun, there really ought to be some responsibility there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except he did not fail any step of the process. 2 back ground checks were passed and as far as I know no weapon has ever been found to be defective.
Click to expand...


Then the process is inadequate.  

It's kind of like saying, "Hey, Airport security was just fine on 9/11, all 19 hijackers got through the checkpoints!"  

Um. No. We didn't do that. 

We got rid of the Minimum wage rent-a-cops and established a professional TSA.  

We put better scanners at the airports. 

We put steel doors in the cockpits of airplanes. 

Shit, we all have to get our shoes X-rayed because one twit lit his shoes on fire. 



If Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, Joker Holmes, that Cho guy from VA Tech were able to get guns despite background checks or someone in their families were, then THOSE CHECKS ARE INADEQUATE.  

Just like airport security was inadequate before 9/11.

I suppose we should be glad Al Qaeda doesn't have Lobbyists and washed up actors working for them.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> Except with the ban on firearms England saw a major increase in homicides ....



If you are going to repeat NRA Horseshit, I'm not wasting time on you.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Don't know about that; what's your plan to prevent another Sandy Hook?  Kevlar school uniforms?



1)  Give people the chance to defend themselves.

2)  At least stop working to ensure that when people go into do those things they won't face armed opposition.  Liberals now are doing a great job ensuring maximum carnage.  Stopping doing that wold be a start.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Except with the ban on firearms England saw a major increase in homicides ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to repeat NRA Horseshit, I'm not wasting time on you.
Click to expand...


Good cause you just make shit up anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Except with the ban on firearms England saw a major increase in homicides ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to repeat NRA Horseshit, I'm not wasting time on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good cause you just make shit up anyway.
Click to expand...


No, get my information from non-partisan sources.  

This bizarre, "The British are awash in crime and they're hiding it" stupidity is just laughable, the NRA knows your cold-stone stupid and will buy it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid. No firearm has been found defective in any shooting. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from getting guns. As proven in the US and around the world. Studies are now proving that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decreases crime and murder.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid. No firearm has been found defective in any shooting. Gun control laws do not prevent criminals from getting guns. As proven in the US and around the world. Studies are now proving that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decreases crime and murder.



when countries don't let citizens have guns, the criminals usually don't have them either.  

It isn't a matter of defective design, it's a matter of defective marketting.  

If Nancy Lanza is  your ideal customer, your business plan is pretty fucked up.  But then again, so is your sense of morality.  

No credible study has shown guns reduce crime. In fact, quite the opposite.  The more guns in a society, the more crimes you have.


----------



## JoeB131

Oh, yeah, Retarded Gummery Sergeant, I noticed you completely avoided my comparison of background checks to airport security.   

I wonder why?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, yeah, Retarded Gummery Sergeant, I noticed you completely avoided my comparison of background checks to airport security.
> 
> I wonder why?



How EXACTLY would you change background checks? the failure so far has been that local authorities fail to do their jobs? Not that the system doesn't work.


----------



## Wildman

yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Retarded Gummery Sergeant, I noticed you completely avoided my comparison of background checks to airport security.
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How EXACTLY would you change background checks? the failure so far has been that local authorities fail to do their jobs? Not that the system doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Thought so. Gotta go to my doctor appointment maybe when I get back you will have answered.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Retarded Gummery Sergeant, I noticed you completely avoided my comparison of background checks to airport security.
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How EXACTLY would you change background checks? the failure so far has been that local authorities fail to do their jobs? Not that the system doesn't work.
Click to expand...


1) Require you to list three personal references, just like you would if you applied for a job.

2) Create a national database to record ALL incidents involving guns.

3) Hold gun sellers responsible for the actions committed by their customers. 

Here was the thing.  When the DC Sniper went on his rampage, his victims sued both the manufacturer and the gun shop.    After that, the manufacturer put in a bunch of additional rules to background check people.  The DC Sniper had a criminal background and his partner was a minor. Neither one should have been allowed to buy a gun, but they did anyway.  

Instead, the NRA went to Congress and got a law passed to immunize gun sellers from lawsuits.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Retarded Gummery Sergeant, I noticed you completely avoided my comparison of background checks to airport security.
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How EXACTLY would you change background checks? the failure so far has been that local authorities fail to do their jobs? Not that the system doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thought so. Gotta go to my doctor appointment maybe when I get back you will have answered.
Click to expand...


Yeah, make sure he adjusts your meds again.  They don't seem to be working today.


----------



## JoeB131

Wildman said:


> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??



Criminals have guns because everyone else does.  

Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, Retarded Gummery Sergeant, I noticed you completely avoided my comparison of background checks to airport security.
> 
> I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How EXACTLY would you change background checks? the failure so far has been that local authorities fail to do their jobs? Not that the system doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Require you to list three personal references, just like you would if you applied for a job.
> 
> 2) Create a national database to record ALL incidents involving guns.
> 
> 3) Hold gun sellers responsible for the actions committed by their customers.
> 
> Here was the thing.  When the DC Sniper went on his rampage, his victims sued both the manufacturer and the gun shop.    After that, the manufacturer put in a bunch of additional rules to background check people.  The DC Sniper had a criminal background and his partner was a minor. Neither one should have been allowed to buy a gun, but they did anyway.
> 
> Instead, the NRA went to Congress and got a law passed to immunize gun sellers from lawsuits.
Click to expand...


Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then. 

A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.

And, as always, go fuck yourself.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
Click to expand...


LOLOLOLOL.

Beacuse no one has the ability to use machine tools to make one if they really wanted one....

Hey!! if we ban meth ownership no one will be able to make meth!!!!


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.
> 
> A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.
> 
> And, as always, go fuck yourself.



There are no rights, only privilages. 

One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL.
> 
> Beacuse no one has the ability to use machine tools to make one if they really wanted one....
> 
> Hey!! if we ban meth ownership no one will be able to make meth!!!!
Click to expand...


Considering how many people are doing hard time for having meth labs, I'd happily take that route.  

Guy, you need to stop mistaking "_Breaking Bad_" for reality.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.
> 
> A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.
> 
> And, as always, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights, only privilages.
> 
> One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.
Click to expand...


Fuck you, you fascist asshole. There are rights, and if needed people will fight for them. Its happened before, it will happen again if mouthbreathing totalitarians like yourself ever take power. 

The 2nd is only partially about militas, the main part is THE PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms. The STATES have the right to form militas using those armed people. IF the state does not want to call up the milita, its thier right, however the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL.
> 
> Beacuse no one has the ability to use machine tools to make one if they really wanted one....
> 
> Hey!! if we ban meth ownership no one will be able to make meth!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering how many people are doing hard time for having meth labs, I'd happily take that route.
> 
> Guy, you need to stop mistaking "_Breaking Bad_" for reality.
Click to expand...


And how many people are getting away with them cleanly???

Yet again you are too stupid to get the point.


----------



## Wildman

> *Hold gun sellers responsible for the actions committed by their customers.*


hey ! great idea, maybe we should enact the same policy towards automobiles, bars and liqueur stores, manufacturers of kitchen stoves..., WoW ! this could end up being the greatest life saver since "Life Savers"


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.
> 
> A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.
> 
> And, as always, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights, only privilages.
> 
> One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you fascist asshole. There are rights, and if needed people will fight for them. Its happened before, it will happen again if mouthbreathing totalitarians like yourself ever take power.
> 
> The 2nd is only partially about militas, the main part is THE PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms. The STATES have the right to form militas using those armed people. IF the state does not want to call up the milita, its thier right, however the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.
Click to expand...


Or the people decide they want ONLY the militia to have guns, and not NRA nutbags who cream their jeans at the thought of shooting at police just doing their jobs. 

You guys are in the minority, and you can only bully the rest of us for so long before we stop putting up with it.


----------



## JoeB131

Wildman said:


> *Hold gun sellers responsible for the actions committed by their customers.*
> 
> 
> 
> hey ! great idea, maybe we should enact the same policy towards automobiles, bars and liqueur stores, manufacturers of kitchen stoves..., WoW ! this could end up being the greatest life saver since "Life Savers"
Click to expand...


We already do.  

Bars can be held liable if they overserve a customer and he goes out and kill someone in a DUI incident.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights, only privilages.
> 
> One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you fascist asshole. There are rights, and if needed people will fight for them. Its happened before, it will happen again if mouthbreathing totalitarians like yourself ever take power.
> 
> The 2nd is only partially about militas, the main part is THE PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms. The STATES have the right to form militas using those armed people. IF the state does not want to call up the milita, its thier right, however the PEOPLE keep the right to arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the people decide they want ONLY the militia to have guns, and not NRA nutbags who cream their jeans at the thought of shooting at police just doing their jobs.
> 
> You guys are in the minority, and you can only bully the rest of us for so long before we stop putting up with it.
Click to expand...


1st, our position is not the minority, your total gun ban position is a SMALL SMALL minority, because most people are not mouth breathing idiots like you. 

Second, the whole idea of a consitutional right is that it takes 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove said right. If you get that much support, good luck, until then go pound sand.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> 1st, our position is not the minority, your total gun ban position is a SMALL SMALL minority, because most people are not mouth breathing idiots like you.
> 
> Second, the whole idea of a consitutional right is that it takes 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove said right. If you get that much support, good luck, until then go pound sand.



Most people support stronger gun laws... Sorry, man.  

Polling Center: Americans overwhelmingly approve of background checks for gun purchases - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


----------



## JoeB131

From that poll. 

Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?


Favor 94%

Oppose 6%


----------



## JoeB131

Do you think there should be restrictions on owning guns in the United States?


Minor restrictions 36%

Major restrictions 34%

No restrictions 14%

Make all guns illegal 14%


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1st, our position is not the minority, your total gun ban position is a SMALL SMALL minority, because most people are not mouth breathing idiots like you.
> 
> Second, the whole idea of a consitutional right is that it takes 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to remove said right. If you get that much support, good luck, until then go pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people support stronger gun laws... Sorry, man.
> 
> Polling Center: Americans overwhelmingly approve of background checks for gun purchases - Elections & Politics from CNN.com
Click to expand...


Polls with typical weasel words that dont really tell you what they really want done.

Everyone of course wants "stronger background checks", however add the points you want, references, waiting periods, etc, and the % who want it will drop significantly 

Polls mean nothing. Votes mean something, and the voters in most places throw gun grabbers out on thier asses. Colorado, for example.


----------



## JoeB131

Do you favor or oppose a ban on semi-automatic assault guns?


Favor 61%

Oppose 37%


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Do you think there should be restrictions on owning guns in the United States?
> 
> 
> Minor restrictions 36%
> 
> Major restrictions 34%
> 
> No restrictions 14%
> 
> Make all guns illegal 14%



Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.

And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Polls mean nothing. Votes mean something, and the voters in most places throw gun grabbers out on thier asses. Colorado, for example.



Two backwater CO districts in an off-year election is not "most places".  

How about this. Why don't we put all the  proposed gun restrictions on a national ballot, and see what gun ownership actually looks like afterwards.  

Both sides agree to abide by the results for 10 years.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Do you favor or oppose a ban on semi-automatic assault guns?
> 
> 
> Favor 61%
> 
> Oppose 37%



Most people who read this think they are banning machine guns.

Ask "should semi-automatic rifles be banned" and the number goes down.

Ask "should rifles be banned?" and it goes down even further.

But keep relying on weasely crap like this. 

Polls, LOL.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think there should be restrictions on owning guns in the United States?
> 
> 
> Minor restrictions 36%
> 
> Major restrictions 34%
> 
> No restrictions 14%
> 
> Make all guns illegal 14%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.
> 
> And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.
Click to expand...


Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again. 

Then you'd better be worried about polls.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Polls mean nothing. Votes mean something, and the voters in most places throw gun grabbers out on thier asses. Colorado, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two backwater CO districts in an off-year election is not "most places".
> 
> How about this. Why don't we put all the  proposed gun restrictions on a national ballot, and see what gun ownership actually looks like afterwards.
> 
> Both sides agree to abide by the results for 10 years.
Click to expand...


To have that work any restriction would need 75% of the vote to pass, that pesky consitution. 

Good luck with that.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think there should be restrictions on owning guns in the United States?
> 
> 
> Minor restrictions 36%
> 
> Major restrictions 34%
> 
> No restrictions 14%
> 
> Make all guns illegal 14%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.
> 
> And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again.
> 
> Then you'd better be worried about polls.
Click to expand...


Do you jack off at night over the thought of 5 out of 9 people lording over your daily life, and deciding what is your right, and what is it?


----------



## ClosedCaption

Bern80 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's you that are mising what you're missing. Doesn't everybody who kills someone know killing someone is illegal? The point is for some types of behavior, legality is of no consequence to someone. People who kill people don't care that killing peope is illegal, which is obviously a far more agregious offense than owning a gun, ergo people who kill people also don't care that owning a gun is illegal, ergo more gun laws aren't likely to prevent more gun crime. Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!  So you're saying crimes and the punishments that come along with them aren't needed because criminals will commit crimes anyway and nothing will change that.
> 
> Thanks for repeating what I said verbatim.   Does that only apply to guns or is that across the board for Molesters, Murderers, rapist etc?  Or just guns?
> 
> KAZZ?!?!  Where you at buddy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably lots of things, but it ultimately comes down to the individual. If you're in a state of mind to even contemplate murder or rape your mind is probably in no condition to ponder the ramifications of those actions. You could even go to less agregeous crimes like smoking weed. Though it doesn't matter because violence with guns are what we're concerned with here. Laws are enacted to have punishments for breaking them. *Whether it is also a deterent to committing that crime is inversely related to it's severity. That is the more sever the crime the less likely the punishment for committing it is likely to deter someone from committing it.*
Click to expand...


That's what I said but some people here believe that despite human behavior, they believe people will not care about the punishment no matter how harsh it is because...ummmm...they are criminals derp!  And Criminals don't display human behaviors...or something

I still want to know that since crimes don't deter people then why have any laws in the first place?  That cant seem to be answered but we all know that punishment deters the crime but they like to play pretend


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your idea about punishment.
> 
> We have a bigger problem than that though...  What's your idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
Click to expand...


How about we start addressing why some of our young people are so depressed they feel the need to shoout up their fellow class mates. In general, how about we focus on the people and their poblems, rather than the objects they use to hurt people.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
Click to expand...


To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?


----------



## KGB

JoeB131 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
Click to expand...


Did Prohibition work back in the 20s?


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
Click to expand...


You really are delusional. You realize no one in the U.S. is allowed to have cocaine either, right?


----------



## KGB

JoeB131 said:


> There are no rights, only privilages.
> 
> One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.



pretty sure the first 10 Amendments disagree with this stupid statement....

Bill of Rights Transcript Text

Oh & the 2nd Amendment is about security of a free state, militias were merely the vehicle of the time.  The right to bear arms was always an individual right & upheld by the Heller decision....


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.
> 
> A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.
> 
> And, as always, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights, only privilages.
> 
> One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.
Click to expand...


You're batting about 1000 on the incorrect inofrmation front. Yes we do have rights in this country. Our government does not bestow priviledges upon us. The Constitution is essentially the priviledges our government has, not it's citizens. And the 2nd ammendment, if you read some of your federalist papers, was written with the intent that people have a means to defend against tyranny.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
Click to expand...


Ya cause that works in England, Mexico, South Africa, Russia and everywhere else right?


----------



## martybegan

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Apply three personal references to your right to free speech then.
> 
> A right is a right, and is not dependent on finding people who like you. Also it allows discretion on the part of the government who can then just choose to disallow you your right because they feel like it.
> 
> And, as always, go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no rights, only privilages.
> 
> One less knuckledragger on the Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment is about Militias again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're batting about 1000 on the incorrect inofrmation front. Yes we do have rights in this country. Our government does not bestow priviledges upon us. The Constitution is essentially the priviledges our government has, not it's citizens. And the 2nd ammendment, if you read some of your federalist papers, was written with the intent that people have a means to defend against tyranny.
Click to expand...


Its simple to understand Joe's viewpoint if you know where he thinks power comes from.

For Joe, power flows from the people as a whole, represented by government, and flows down to the individual. Thus individuals are only granted what the people as a whole want them to have (i.e. the government tells you what to do)

For true followers of our consitution, power flows from the people as individuals UP to the government, and the people as individuals grant some powers to the government, while retaining others (i.e. rights).  Thus it is the government that is GRANTED powers by the people, and is thus limited to what the PEOPLE allow it. 

Joe is simply an authoritarian.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do. One that doesn't come even close to being addressed by getting rid of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we start addressing why some of our young people are so depressed they feel the need to shoout up their fellow class mates. In general, how about we focus on the people and their poblems, rather than the objects they use to hurt people.
Click to expand...


So increase public health funding?  Some republicans want to kill such programs.


----------



## ClosedCaption

The repubs are yanking their own crank when Joe showed up saying take the guns.  Repubs are like "FINALLY I can use my Talking Points again!"


----------



## Missourian

candycorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know you have a plan...whatever it is.  Someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
Click to expand...


I've already explained why that won't fly...using a tax as a punitive measure to deny a citizen a right is unconstitutional.

As in "Shall not be infringed" by a punitive government tax.

It would also violate the equal protection cause...rich folks would have greater access than poor folks solely based on a government policy.

There is not a chance on earth this would pass constitutional muster.


----------



## Missourian

Brain357 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed?  If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.
Click to expand...


It was a she,  and the killer was her son.

That the owner was a mother and perhaps had a blind spot where considering a child that she loved might kill her is concerned is no reflection on gun ownership.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> The repubs are yanking their own crank when Joe showed up saying take the guns.  Repubs are like "FINALLY I can use my Talking Points again!"



You claimed gun control laws worked and when I pointed out they clearly do not you failed to respond, did you think I would forget?


----------



## Missourian

Missourian said:


> We keep getting the same canned answers spoon fed to the posters by their anti-gun masters.
> 
> These guys went through background checks.
> 
> Cho,  Joker,  Loughner,  Alexis.
> 
> Every one of them PASS a NICS federal background check.
> 
> Registration???  WTF?
> 
> We KNOW who bought the guns.  We know because they were background checked.
> 
> We have  Closed Caption running around waving her hands above her head yelling "I don't know what to do,  BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"
> 
> That's the absolutely WORST solution.
> 
> I'm no liberal,  but I'll tell you my plan.
> 
> Background check for private sales of handguns and semi-automatic centerfire long guns.
> 
> (I realize you gun grabbers likely have no idea what this means...look it up and educate yourselves.)
> 
> But NOT the same background check protocol as new purchases.
> 
> I should be able to call in myself give a persons name and get a background check and a confirmation number...I'll be responsible for the information gathering and the record keeping.
> 
> I'll get a signed bill of sale that I sold John Q. Smith of 1234 Frame St. my Ruger SR9C serial number 1234567890 on such and such date and here is the confirmation number of the background check.
> 
> If I choose,  I can turn that information over to my local Sheriffs department and be absolved of the burden of record keeping  or I can keep in in a file locked up with my firearms.
> 
> If the gun is used in a crime and the police come looking for it,  there is a paper trail.
> 
> But you aren't required to give the serial number of the firearm as part of the background check.
> 
> 
> Everyone's main concerns are addressed.
> 
> Handguns,  the major contributor to gun crime and gun violence are being background checked,  and legal gun owners can still trade hunting rifles and shotguns without government looking over their shoulders.




^Not a single question,  comment or criticism on this post?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We keep getting the same canned answers spoon fed to the posters by their anti-gun masters.
> 
> These guys went through background checks.
> 
> Cho,  Joker,  Loughner,  Alexis.
> 
> Every one of them PASS a NICS federal background check.
> 
> Registration???  WTF?
> 
> We KNOW who bought the guns.  We know because they were background checked.
> 
> We have  Closed Caption running around waving her hands above her head yelling "I don't know what to do,  BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"
> 
> That's the absolutely WORST solution.
> 
> I'm no liberal,  but I'll tell you my plan.
> 
> Background check for private sales of handguns and semi-automatic centerfire long guns.
> 
> (I realize you gun grabbers likely have no idea what this means...look it up and educate yourselves.)
> 
> But NOT the same background check protocol as new purchases.
> 
> I should be able to call in myself give a persons name and get a background check and a confirmation number...I'll be responsible for the information gathering and the record keeping.
> 
> I'll get a signed bill of sale that I sold John Q. Smith of 1234 Frame St. my Ruger SR9C serial number 1234567890 on such and such date and here is the confirmation number of the background check.
> 
> If I choose,  I can turn that information over to my local Sheriffs department and be absolved of the burden of record keeping  or I can keep in in a file locked up with my firearms.
> 
> If the gun is used in a crime and the police come looking for it,  there is a paper trail.
> 
> But you aren't required to give the serial number of the firearm as part of the background check.
> 
> 
> Everyone's main concerns are addressed.
> 
> Handguns,  the major contributor to gun crime and gun violence are being background checked,  and legal gun owners can still trade hunting rifles and shotguns without government looking over their shoulders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^Not a single question,  comment or criticism on this post?
Click to expand...


They aren't interested in sensible laws. they want to ban weapons and only those steps that advance that cause will be considered.


----------



## Missourian

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of gun murders are committed by people killing people they know.
> 
> I don't worry so much about the "Criminals" as much as I do the vast majority of you drooling idiots who have neither the training or judgement to own a gun.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link to this...I am having trouble corroborating this percentage.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
Click to expand...


That's how you keep honest people from having guns, the question is how do we keep CRIMINALS from getting guns?

And specifically, address how since any high school kid will tell you they can get all the pot they want, how are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?

There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world, and it's not rocket science to make them.  That's why you can't address the question, because you have no answer.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
Click to expand...


Pot is completely illegal.  Yet it's everywhere.  Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns.  Here you go.  You make guns illegal, then...  and it doesn't work with pot because...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Missourian said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80% of gun murders are committed by people killing people they know.
> 
> I don't worry so much about the "Criminals" as much as I do the vast majority of you drooling idiots who have neither the training or judgement to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to this...I am having trouble corroborating this percentage.
Click to expand...


Found this link The Spokesman-Review - Google News Archive Search it is a horrible page thingy.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> The repubs are yanking their own crank when Joe showed up saying take the guns.  Repubs are like "FINALLY I can use my Talking Points again!"



Finally, you can go back to what you're repeating from MS-NBC, back to your comfort zone.


----------



## candycorn

Brain357 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed?  If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.
Click to expand...


I disagree; here is why.  

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.  

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.  

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.  

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.


----------



## Missourian

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #2 just as soon as say car manufacturers are held financially responsible for car accidents by all drivers.
> 
> #4 is unconstitutional as well, ever hear of a poll tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, all car owners are ALREADY required to get insurance in most states. so that isn't even an argument.
> 
> *Car manufacturers ARE held responsible for accidents caused by bad designs.  *
> 
> I think that when you hold the gun store responsible for selling a shotgun to Aaron Alexis after he failed to pass a test for a rifle or handgun, there really ought to be some responsibility there.
Click to expand...


Gun manufacturers are held to that standard as well Joe.

RSG said "When car manufacturers are held responsible for car accidents"

The second part about Alexis is a total lie on your part.

THERE IS ONLY ONE BACKGROUND CHECK.

If you pass it for a shotgun,  you passed it for a handgun or an AR-15.

Alexis didn't attempt to buy anything else.

Why lie?  I have personally correct this when you posted it before.

It destroys your credibility.

No one believes a liar.
Aaron Alexis  passed Federal Bureau Investigation and Virginia state background  checks to purchase a shotgun from Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in  Lorton, Va., over the weekend.  


Alexis *did not attempt to purchase a rifle or handgun from the store*, The Washington Times has learned exclusively.

Read more: MILLER: Aaron Alexis passed two background checks, bought shotgun from Sharpshooters in Lorton, Va. - Washington Times​http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...passed-two-background-checks-b/#ixzz2fpDvBKD0​http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...passed-two-background-checks-b/#ixzz2fpDvBKD0 

​


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Then there is this The Misleading Murderer that you Know

Which debunks the 80 percent.


----------



## Steven_R

Here's a guy who built an AK-47 in his garage out of a shovel. DIY: Shovel AK - photo tsunami warning! 

Remind me how laws restricting gun ownership will get guns out of circulation...


----------



## candycorn

Missourian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that won't fly...using a tax as a *punitive* measure to deny a citizen a right is unconstitutional.
> 
> As in "Shall not be infringed" by a punitive government tax.
> 
> It would also violate the equal protection cause...rich folks would have greater access than poor folks solely based on a government policy.
> 
> There is not a chance on earth this would pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...


Make it not punitive; as for "not a chance on earth", I seem to remember that being said about Obamacare--by me in fact.


----------



## kaz

Missourian said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand gun control can't prevent this crime either...got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that won't fly...using a tax as a punitive measure to deny a citizen a right is unconstitutional.
> 
> As in "Shall not be infringed" by a punitive government tax.
> 
> It would also violate the equal protection cause...rich folks would have greater access than poor folks solely based on a government policy.
> 
> There is not a chance on earth this would pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...


A year ago I'd have said the same about government requiring citizens to buy a product from a private company.  A few years ago, I'd have said the same about government using eminent domain to take property from citizens and giving it to a private company.  A decade ago, I'd have said the same about congress regulating political speech leading into elections.

Sadly that line of defense is gone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed?  If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
Click to expand...


And you would be wrong, Voting which is NOT a protected right can not be taxed it is an infringement according to the Courts. Thus a protected right can not be singled out for punitive taxation either.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that won't fly...using a tax as a *punitive* measure to deny a citizen a right is unconstitutional.
> 
> As in "Shall not be infringed" by a punitive government tax.
> 
> It would also violate the equal protection cause...rich folks would have greater access than poor folks solely based on a government policy.
> 
> There is not a chance on earth this would pass constitutional muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make it not punitive; as for "not a chance on earth", I seem to remember that being said about Obamacare--by me in fact.
Click to expand...


Suppose socons don't outlaw abortion, they just put a $100,000 tax on it?


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed?  If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
Click to expand...


So basically stigmatize the ability to defend youself, and be a bitch of the state?

No thank you. Also, cigarettes are not a right, gun ownership is, and is just as important as any of our other rights.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Kaz Buddy!  You missed so Much!!  Did you go back and read pal?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> Kaz Buddy!  You missed so Much!!  Did you go back and read pal?



Still ignoring me I see, you STATED Gun control laws worked, I listed 3 cities and 4 Countries where it does NOT work. You ignored those posts.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's hear your idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start addressing why some of our young people are so depressed they feel the need to shoout up their fellow class mates. In general, how about we focus on the people and their poblems, rather than the objects they use to hurt people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So increase public health funding?  Some republicans want to kill such programs.
Click to expand...


Not exactly. My point is we address the real issue. The people that use guns to commit these violent acts. How that should be addressed and paid for is a seperate discussion.


----------



## ClosedCaption

RetiredGySgt said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz Buddy!  You missed so Much!!  Did you go back and read pal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still ignoring me I see, you STATED Gun control laws worked, I listed 3 cities and 4 Countries where it does NOT work. You ignored those posts.
Click to expand...


No you showed where gun crime still happens.  That's all.  Crashes still happen but we have traffic lights idiot.  Has gun crime been reduced is the question.  You ignore it because you have too


----------



## Missourian

candycorn said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that won't fly...using a tax as a *punitive* measure to deny a citizen a right is unconstitutional.
> 
> As in "Shall not be infringed" by a punitive government tax.
> 
> It would also violate the equal protection cause...rich folks would have greater access than poor folks solely based on a government policy.
> 
> There is not a chance on earth this would pass constitutional muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make it not punitive; as for "not a chance on earth", I seem to remember that being said about Obamacare--by me in fact.
Click to expand...



Well,  if certainly makes the push for private party background checks make more sense.

Can't tax a transaction that the government isn't aware of.


----------



## Steven_R

Is suspect if private sales are outlawed there will be a lot more reports of gun thefts. "Heck no, I didn't sell my rifles. Someone broke in my house and stile my shit. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket."


----------



## Bern80

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> We keep getting the same canned answers spoon fed to the posters by their anti-gun masters.
> 
> These guys went through background checks.
> 
> Cho,  Joker,  Loughner,  Alexis.
> 
> Every one of them PASS a NICS federal background check.
> 
> Registration???  WTF?
> 
> We KNOW who bought the guns.  We know because they were background checked.
> 
> We have  Closed Caption running around waving her hands above her head yelling "I don't know what to do,  BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!"
> 
> That's the absolutely WORST solution.
> 
> I'm no liberal,  but I'll tell you my plan.
> 
> Background check for private sales of handguns and semi-automatic centerfire long guns.
> 
> (I realize you gun grabbers likely have no idea what this means...look it up and educate yourselves.)
> 
> But NOT the same background check protocol as new purchases.
> 
> I should be able to call in myself give a persons name and get a background check and a confirmation number...I'll be responsible for the information gathering and the record keeping.
> 
> I'll get a signed bill of sale that I sold John Q. Smith of 1234 Frame St. my Ruger SR9C serial number 1234567890 on such and such date and here is the confirmation number of the background check.
> 
> If I choose,  I can turn that information over to my local Sheriffs department and be absolved of the burden of record keeping  or I can keep in in a file locked up with my firearms.
> 
> If the gun is used in a crime and the police come looking for it,  there is a paper trail.
> 
> But you aren't required to give the serial number of the firearm as part of the background check.
> 
> 
> Everyone's main concerns are addressed.
> 
> Handguns,  the major contributor to gun crime and gun violence are being background checked,  and legal gun owners can still trade hunting rifles and shotguns without government looking over their shoulders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^Not a single question,  comment or criticism on this post?
Click to expand...


Again the only part I have an issue with is holding the seller responsible for the actions of someone that commits a crime with a gun. For that to be a reasonable course of action it should be applicable to other contexts. But it's not. We don't hold the prior owner of a car responsible if the person who buys it from kills someone drunk driving.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:

1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.

2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.

4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!  So you're saying crimes and the punishments that come along with them aren't needed because criminals will commit crimes anyway and nothing will change that.
> 
> Thanks for repeating what I said verbatim.   Does that only apply to guns or is that across the board for Molesters, Murderers, rapist etc?  Or just guns?
> 
> KAZZ?!?!  Where you at buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably lots of things, but it ultimately comes down to the individual. If you're in a state of mind to even contemplate murder or rape your mind is probably in no condition to ponder the ramifications of those actions. You could even go to less agregeous crimes like smoking weed. Though it doesn't matter because violence with guns are what we're concerned with here. Laws are enacted to have punishments for breaking them. *Whether it is also a deterent to committing that crime is inversely related to it's severity. That is the more sever the crime the less likely the punishment for committing it is likely to deter someone from committing it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said but some people here believe that despite human behavior, they believe people will not care about the punishment no matter how harsh it is because...ummmm...they are criminals derp!  And Criminals don't display human behaviors...or something
> 
> I still want to know that since crimes don't deter people then why have any laws in the first place?  That cant seem to be answered but we all know that punishment deters the crime but they like to play pretend
Click to expand...


Asked and answered, but here goes again. You obviously can't punish people for breaking laws that don't exist. Nor did I saw there are no punishments that can act as a deterent to certain laws.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz Buddy!  You missed so Much!!  Did you go back and read pal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still ignoring me I see, you STATED Gun control laws worked, I listed 3 cities and 4 Countries where it does NOT work. You ignored those posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you showed where gun crime still happens.  That's all.  Crashes still happen but we have traffic lights idiot.  Has gun crime been reduced is the question.  You ignore it because you have too
Click to expand...


Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
Click to expand...


Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
Click to expand...


Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.

Specifically address the point in the op, please.  Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal.  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns?  You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.


----------



## Steven_R

So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?

Well, shit. I'm convinced.


----------



## ClosedCaption

RetiredGySgt said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still ignoring me I see, you STATED Gun control laws worked, I listed 3 cities and 4 Countries where it does NOT work. You ignored those posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you showed where gun crime still happens.  That's all.  Crashes still happen but we have traffic lights idiot.  Has gun crime been reduced is the question.  You ignore it because you have too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws
Click to expand...


Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....

Link?


----------



## kaz

Steven_R said:


> So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?
> 
> Well, shit. I'm convinced.



Apparently criminals hate bureaucracy.  If they have to file enough forms, they won't commit the crime.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you showed where gun crime still happens.  That's all.  Crashes still happen but we have traffic lights idiot.  Has gun crime been reduced is the question.  You ignore it because you have too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.

Some people like to google things so they inform themselves.  I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first.  I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness.  There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Steven_R said:


> So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?
> 
> Well, shit. I'm convinced.



That's how it works for voting fraud laws.  Somehow you made it seem so silly


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a massive tax on the gun that was "stolen" it likey wouldn't have been purchased in the first place...fact.
> 
> So no gun stolen; no mass murder in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the gun owner have the gun to keep from being robbed/killed?  If it doesn't work then maybe he shouldn't have it in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
Click to expand...


This is probably the argument that bothers me the most and the one that is most irrational out of all of them. There should be no negative stigma attached to gun ownership. I should not be made to feel bad or be financial burdened by taxes because I own guns. I wish people like you would start asking yourselves whether your perceoption of guns is even accurate before you start advocating for measures to get rid of them under some naive auspice that you're doing some great good. The fact is, you're not. What you're proposing is completely immoral. You do not punish the law abiding in a feeble attempt to stop the non-law abiding. 

Perception is based on experience. I am aware enough to know where my perception about guns comes from. I grew up in northern, rural Minnesota. Not a very populace area, but there were easily hundreds of guns within a mile of my home growing up. Yet to this day, no one has died or been injured from any of them. No one has ever even been shot at as far as I'm aware. Where I grew up, guns weren't used by gang members to defend their turf or execute people or rob them. They are used for hunting primarily and sport shooting. Last weekend was duck hunting opener. You have never heard such caucophony of gun fire in your life, I promise. Yet no one was killed. 

I know you've heard this before, but it isn't sinking in. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Stop this ridiculous crusade of punishing law abiding individuals like myself with the naive notion that you'll stop criminal behavior. Your comparision to cigarettes is ridiculous. Cigarettes kill exponentially more people than guns. And like them or not, it is not a proper role of government to regulate them.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.
> 
> Some people like to google things so they inform themselves.  I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first.  I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness.  There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.
Click to expand...


There you are!



ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
Click to expand...


Apology accepted.


----------



## martybegan

ClosedCaption said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?
> 
> Well, shit. I'm convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works for voting fraud laws.  Somehow you made it seem so silly
Click to expand...


If all I had to do in NYC was show my Driver's Licsense to get a gun, I'd be happier then a pig in shit. I'd even have no problem doing the same thing to vote!

Fine, Ill agree to that. Where can I sign up?


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?
> 
> Well, shit. I'm convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works for voting fraud laws.  Somehow you made it seem so silly
Click to expand...


Ignoring the idiocy of your analogy because you can't buy "voting" on the black market and your belief that having an ID are "bureaucratic hoops to jump though," you oppose those requirements and the point was to you.  So you didn't logically contradict the point.

You're lost when you don't have a handy Ed Schultz quote, aren't you ClosedMinded?


----------



## Bern80

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
Click to expand...


It is amazing how goofy the priorties of the left are. You say you want to end needless death, yet you go to the bottom of the list of things that cause death. I imagine it has more to do with the fact that it's the least inconvenient for you being a non gun owner. I doubt you would be willing to apply these same rules to something like cars. Another inanimate object that is involved in far more injury and death than guns.


----------



## kaz

martybegan said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?
> 
> Well, shit. I'm convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works for voting fraud laws.  Somehow you made it seem so silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If all I had to do in NYC was show my Driver's Licsense to get a gun, I'd be happier then a pig in shit. I'd even have no problem doing the same thing to vote!
> 
> Fine, Ill agree to that. Where can I sign up?
Click to expand...


Ouch, you just bitch slapped ClosedCaption so hard it made me shudder...

I'll second your motion though, that sounds like a deal.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.
> 
> Some people like to google things so they inform themselves.  I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first.  I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness.  There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you are!
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.
Click to expand...


This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said.  I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work!  Bam, eat that kaz.  Um...OK.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this right...if add just a bunch more requirements for the law abiding and a bunch more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to exercise a specifically mentioned civil right we'll somehow end up with fewer criminals?
> 
> Well, shit. I'm convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works for voting fraud laws.  Somehow you made it seem so silly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignoring the idiocy of your analogy because you can't buy "voting" on the black market and your belief that having an ID are "bureaucratic hoops to jump though," you oppose those requirements and the point was to you.  So you didn't logically contradict the point.
> 
> You're lost when you don't have a handy Ed Schultz quote, aren't you ClosedMinded?
Click to expand...


God dude, You cant pull a trigger on a vote either.  Are we really going to go into all the differences like no voting firing pin too or are you trying to be clever

Kaz: I've never seen someone shot by a vote derp!  Look I'm intelligent!


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works for voting fraud laws.  Somehow you made it seem so silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the idiocy of your analogy because you can't buy "voting" on the black market and your belief that having an ID are "bureaucratic hoops to jump though," you oppose those requirements and the point was to you.  So you didn't logically contradict the point.
> 
> You're lost when you don't have a handy Ed Schultz quote, aren't you ClosedMinded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God dude, You cant pull a trigger on a vote either.  Are we really going to go into all the differences like no voting firing pin too or are you trying to be clever
> 
> Kaz: I've never seen someone shot by a vote derp!  Look I'm intelligent!
Click to expand...


Actually voters are a lot more dangerous.  That's how the people who prevented the Washington Navy Yard shooter from facing armed opposition got their way.  You also gave us Obamacare, you are spending us into the ground, you are stifling our business with regulation and killing the economy.

Bad voters are not only a lot more dangerous than people with guns, but there are a whole lot more of you...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ClosedCaption said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you showed where gun crime still happens.  That's all.  Crashes still happen but we have traffic lights idiot.  Has gun crime been reduced is the question.  You ignore it because you have too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative

How about that?


----------



## auditor0007

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



There is only one way to effectively take the guns out of the hands of criminals.  That is to take all guns away from everyone.  It's not going to happen, so we will continue to see mass shootings over and over again.  We currently have over 300 million people living in this country, and even if only one in every ten thousand is a true mental fuck up, that amounts to 30,000 nut cases who are mentally capable of going on a rampage and killing as many as they can.  

So what is the answer?  I don't really know that there is one.  We should be trying our best to keep the guns out of the hands of known ex-cons and people with known mental issues, and that requires better background checks, but even that won't completely stop crazies from getting guns if they really want them.  With all that in mind, I do not think allowing everyone to walk around packing their own firearm is such a great idea either.  Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are not responsible enough to be carrying around a gun.  Just think about it; there are idiots all around us every day.  We see them and know they are idiots.  Do we want them carrying guns?


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.
> 
> Some people like to google things so they inform themselves.  I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first.  I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness.  There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you are!
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said.  I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work!  Bam, eat that kaz.  Um...OK.
Click to expand...


Ok since you missed it all here it is: 





ClosedCaption said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal to shoot people. *Is one more law going to magically fix this? *We'll make it extra-illegal? Maybe we can put people who use guns on Double Secret Probation just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Kaz...Let me just requite what you said
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same strawman, I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, *you pulled that out of your ass.*
> This is the incredibly low bar liberals paint for yourselves.  For your own proposals, that you want them to work is sufficient to justify them.  For me, you assign that if I'm not going to give you your way, my proposal has to be perfection.  It has to work 100% of the time.  You've proven nothing but what a vacant intellect you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's Steven making the same argument.  I promise you that I am not Steven and didn't make him say this.  Soooo, uhhhh
Click to expand...


Later after this exchange you were missing.  But don't worry I kept an eye out for you.  Then this happened:



ClosedCaption said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Closed Caption you said this 3 pages ago and no one has answered yet.  This is you from the future.  You were right!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that already.
> 
> Cho,  Loughner,  Joker and Alexis all passed federal firearm background checks to buy firearms.
> 
> Lanza and Hill stole the guns they used.
> 
> Gun control failure all around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
Click to expand...


Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that.  Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.

I know you're still confused but that's ok.  I still accept your apology


----------



## Bern80

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one way to effectively take the guns out of the hands of criminals.  That is to take all guns away from everyone.  It's not going to happen, so we will continue to see mass shootings over and over again.  We currently have over 300 million people living in this country, and even if only one in every ten thousand is a true mental fuck up, that amounts to 30,000 nut cases who are mentally capable of going on a rampage and killing as many as they can.
> 
> So what is the answer?  I don't really know that there is one.  We should be trying our best to keep the guns out of the hands of known ex-cons and people with known mental issues, and that requires better background checks, but even that won't completely stop crazies from getting guns if they really want them.  With all that in mind, I do not think allowing everyone to walk around packing their own firearm is such a great idea either.  Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are not responsible enough to be carrying around a gun.  Just think about it; there are idiots all around us every day.  We see them and know they are idiots.  Do we want them carrying guns?
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Did taking cocaine away from everyone stop people from using it? And taking away guns is the _only_ way to stop mass shootings? Really?! There's nothing else we can do to address that? Perhaps plugging in a little more as parents.


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one way to effectively take the guns out of the hands of criminals.  That is to take all guns away from everyone.  It's not going to happen, so we will continue to see mass shootings over and over again.  We currently have over 300 million people living in this country, and even if only one in every ten thousand is a true mental fuck up, that amounts to 30,000 nut cases who are mentally capable of going on a rampage and killing as many as they can.
> 
> So what is the answer?  I don't really know that there is one.  We should be trying our best to keep the guns out of the hands of known ex-cons and people with known mental issues, and that requires better background checks, but even that won't completely stop crazies from getting guns if they really want them.  With all that in mind, I do not think allowing everyone to walk around packing their own firearm is such a great idea either.  Unfortunately, there are just too many people who are not responsible enough to be carrying around a gun.  Just think about it; there are idiots all around us every day.  We see them and know they are idiots.  Do we want them carrying guns?
Click to expand...


What about allowing honest citizens the right to protect themselves?  Our approach now is to make it catastrophic for the lives and careers of honest citizens while doing virtually nothing that keeps them out of the hands of criminals.  How do you not think when you see things like dozens of pep[le killed by one lunatic that wow, what if some of them had guns!

Not to mention that in NY, DC and all the places that outlaw guns, the criminals are unopposed every time they commit robberies and that sort of thing.  Isn't there some point where liberals think wow, what we're doing is not only not working, it's actually bad?


----------



## ClosedCaption

RetiredGySgt said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies clearly show that lesser gun laws more concealed carry and law abiding citizens owning firearms reduces crime not more strict gun laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime
> 
> More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative
> 
> How about that?
Click to expand...


Did someone here say there was a Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime?  If not why is that link included?

I see you've opted to use the waste of time technique of debating.  Put up links that has nothing to do with what I said.  Thanks for that and thanks for proving you don't have the data to back up what you're saying.


----------



## Steven_R

kaz said:


> Isn't there some point where liberals think wow, what we're doing is not only not working, it's actually bad?



No. It just means the laws didn't go far enough. More, much stricter, laws are needed. Repeat _ad nauseum_.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that.  Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.
> 
> I know you're still confused but that's ok.  I still accept your apology



What is wrong with you?  Here is what I said you pulled out of your ass.  



			
				kaz said:
			
		

> I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.



Neither of them argued that eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders either.  You know what, in your case I'm going to give you my blessing to just quote Keith Olbermann...


----------



## Bern80

ClosedCaption said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studies....Scrreeeeaacch.....
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime
> 
> More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative
> 
> How about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did someone here say there was a Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime?  If not why is that link included?
> 
> I see you've opted to use the waste of time technique of debating.  Put up links that has nothing to do with what I said.  Thanks for that and thanks for proving you don't have the data to back up what you're saying.
Click to expand...


Sooo, why are you here exactly? Cause as far as I can tell it's simply to be argumentative. I believe you originally asked someone to show that greater gun regulation doesn't reduce violence? The implication being that you do believe such laws reduce gun violence, but you're saying that isn't your position now. So what is your position? Or are you just a forum troll?


----------



## kaz

Steven_R said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there some point where liberals think wow, what we're doing is not only not working, it's actually bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It just means the laws didn't go far enough. More, much stricter, laws are needed. Repeat _ad nauseum_.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Gun laws didn't work, they aren't restrictive enough!

Trillions spent on the War on Poverty hasn't changed poverty rates, we didn't spend enough money!

Regulation to death of energy, health care and banking have just made things worse, we didn't regulate enough!

Obama's economic policies haven't worked in 5 years now, we didn't give him enough time!

There is no ability to question that maybe, just maybe, their plans don't work because they are stupid...


----------



## Missourian

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya man, Rachel Madow never told you that, it' can't be true.
> 
> Some people like to google things so they inform themselves.  I never ask for a link w/o trying to educate myself first.  I guess that's why you need government schools to accommodate your intellectual laziness.  There are plenty of liberals spinning away the studies, but even they aren't denying them, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you are!
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So KAZ...
> 
> Do you see how any error is seen as the entire law not working?  Its like saying laws against killing someone does not work because someone killed someone.  MURDER LAW FAILURE ALL AROUND.
> 
> What happened to Kaz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said.  I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work!  Bam, eat that kaz.  Um...OK.
Click to expand...



That's exactly what I said...maybe hearing it twice will help though.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that.  Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.
> 
> I know you're still confused but that's ok.  I still accept your apology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  Here is what I said you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of them argued that eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders either.  You know what, in your case I'm going to give you my blessing to just quote Keith Olbermann...
Click to expand...


Steven R said: It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this?


No he didn't say all, he doesn't need to say "all" the message is loud and clear when he said "magically" stop shooting people. 

Apology accepted...now you can play the semantics game with someone else


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steven R and Missourian both gave the answers to why gun control doesn't work that you said I pulled out of my ass and added no one is saying that.  Here are 2 people saying just what you said they don't.
> 
> I know you're still confused but that's ok.  I still accept your apology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  Here is what I said you pulled out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders, you pulled that out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of them argued that eliminating gun laws would prevent all murders either.  You know what, in your case I'm going to give you my blessing to just quote Keith Olbermann...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steven R said: It's already illegal to shoot people. Is one more law going to magically fix this?
> 
> 
> No he didn't say all, he doesn't need to say "all" the message is loud and clear when he said "magically" stop shooting people.
> 
> Apology accepted...now you can play the semantics game with someone else
Click to expand...


He wasn't even addressing the point whether reducing gun laws would reduce murders, he was mocking your view that you wanted more gun laws, which aren't working now as if one more law is the one that will do the trick.  You seriously didn't get that?  Semantics?  Something is seriously wrong with you.


----------



## kaz

Missourian said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you are!
> 
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said.  I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work!  Bam, eat that kaz.  Um...OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said...maybe hearing it twice will help though.
Click to expand...


He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?

He thinks you said that if we eliminate all gun laws that would eliminate all murders.  I see no possible way to get that out of what you said.


----------



## KGB

candycorn said:


> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.



with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.    

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.


----------



## KGB

Bern80 said:


> This is probably the argument that bothers me the most and the one that is most irrational out of all of them. There should be no negative stigma attached to gun ownership. I should not be made to feel bad or be financial burdened by taxes because I own guns. I wish people like you would start asking yourselves whether your perceoption of guns is even accurate before you start advocating for measures to get rid of them under some naive auspice that you're doing some great good. The fact is, you're not. What you're proposing is completely immoral. You do not punish the law abiding in a feeble attempt to stop the non-law abiding.
> 
> Perception is based on experience. I am aware enough to know where my perception about guns comes from. I grew up in northern, rural Minnesota. Not a very populace area, but there were easily hundreds of guns within a mile of my home growing up. Yet to this day, no one has died or been injured from any of them. No one has ever even been shot at as far as I'm aware. Where I grew up, guns weren't used by gang members to defend their turf or execute people or rob them. They are used for hunting primarily and sport shooting. Last weekend was duck hunting opener. You have never heard such caucophony of gun fire in your life, I promise. Yet no one was killed.
> 
> I know you've heard this before, but it isn't sinking in. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Stop this ridiculous crusade of punishing law abiding individuals like myself with the naive notion that you'll stop criminal behavior. Your comparision to cigarettes is ridiculous. Cigarettes kill exponentially more people than guns. And like them or not, it is not a proper role of government to regulate them.


----------



## Missourian

kaz said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This makes no sense and doesn't contradict anything I've said.  I said our gun laws don't work and they can't work, and you come back with oh yeah, well they didn't work!  Bam, eat that kaz.  Um...OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said...maybe hearing it twice will help though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?
> 
> He thinks you said that if we eliminate all gun laws that would eliminate all murders.  I see no possible way to get that out of what you said.
Click to expand...



Me either...

My point was,  these mass shooters passed a NICS background check and bought their guns at the store...

...then gun grabbers come along and say "We have a solution...we'll expand background checks to private sales!"

Are they idiots?

The background check didn't stop these guys...how is background checking OTHER gun purchases even remotely being seriously considered as a solution?

So Cho,  Loughner,  Joker,  and Alexis go to private party...STILL pass a background check and STILL go on a mass shooting spree!

Solution = failure of the highest magnitude.

How do these folks fail to understand this?


----------



## Wry Catcher

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.
Click to expand...


Of course.  An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation.  How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation.  How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?
Click to expand...


So what about government licenses, fees and background checks for abortions?  Pro-lifers have the same belief about abortions spreading "daily carnage that costs the lives of innocents across our nation."


----------



## Steven_R

Discuss it all you want, but if an act is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional. 

If only there were a method for fixing the Constitution if it is found to be inadequate. A way of amending it perhaps? Nah, that'd never work. Let's just use hyperbole and emotion and ignore the Constitution.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.
> 
> Specifically address the point in the op, please.  Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal.  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns?  You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.
Click to expand...


Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun.  Honest citizens should not have a problem with gun control and your apples and antelope analogy is silly.  

Think of my post as people control, not gun control.  Even a gun lover knows that not everyone is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.  Next time someone shoots and kills a dozen or more unarmed citizens argue that more and more of us ought to be armed.  Next time someone shoots and kills 24 innocents in an elementary school just say, "ain't it awful" but my rights supersede their lives.  

Nothing in the four points I posted impact your liberty in any real sense.  You can still have your guns, only if they were implemented you would need to exercise personal responsibility for owning, possessing and having in your custody and control a gun or else go to jail and pay a fine.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.
> 
> Specifically address the point in the op, please.  Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal.  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns?  You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun.  Honest citizens should not have a problem with gun control and your apples and antelope analogy is silly.
> 
> Think of my post as people control, not gun control.  Even a gun lover knows that not everyone is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> *The Second Amendment is outdated*, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.  Next time someone shoots and kills a dozen or more unarmed citizens argue that more and more of us ought to be armed.  Next time someone shoots and kills 24 innocents in an elementary school just say, "ain't it awful" but my rights supersede their lives.
> 
> Nothing in the four points I posted impact your liberty in any real sense.  You can still have your guns, only if they were implemented you would need to exercise personal responsibility for owning, possessing and having in your custody and control a gun or else go to jail and pay a fine.
Click to expand...


Then work to get it revised or repealed, until then, fuck off.


----------



## earlycuyler

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



They have no plan. Even this last bit they did, the Joe Manchin Toomy thing was stupid and b their own admission useless. Mostly, they talk and say what they are told to say and think. Not one gun control advocate can point to one law that would have prevented one death in thees mass shootings. There is no proof that even an out right gun ban would have prevented any of those deaths. History proves that when one gets it in their head to kill lots of folks that's just what they are going to do.  Its pretty sad that Americans can be so stupid thees days. So willing to let some info twat on cable TV tell them what to think. I'm sad for my country. Its circling the drain and judging by the stupidity displayed in thees threads, I am not seeing any reason to hope it will get any better.


----------



## candycorn

KGB said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
Click to expand...


You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.


----------



## Steven_R

Wry Catcher said:


> The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.



Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern? 

We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases. 

The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life.  There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our  brains.)

You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.


----------



## Wry Catcher

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.
> 
> Specifically address the point in the op, please.  Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal.  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns?  You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun.  Honest citizens should not have a problem with gun control and your apples and antelope analogy is silly.
> 
> Think of my post as people control, not gun control.  Even a gun lover knows that not everyone is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> *The Second Amendment is outdated*, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.  Next time someone shoots and kills a dozen or more unarmed citizens argue that more and more of us ought to be armed.  Next time someone shoots and kills 24 innocents in an elementary school just say, "ain't it awful" but my rights supersede their lives.
> 
> Nothing in the four points I posted impact your liberty in any real sense.  You can still have your guns, only if they were implemented you would need to exercise personal responsibility for owning, possessing and having in your custody and control a gun or else go to jail and pay a fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then work to get it revised or repealed, until then, fuck off.
Click to expand...



Your angry and emotional response fits nicely into my remark that not everyone, "is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun"; I suspect you wouldn't pass the psychological barrier which should preclude angry and emotionally unstable persons for securing a license to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun.

US Message Board is a forum where all ideas can be expressed, that you tell me to STFU because you disagree with my opinion suggests you hold the Second as sacrosanct, but would be willing to restrict my speech - possibly with a gun or other device as did Rudolph, Roeder and McVeigh in silencing their victims.


----------



## itfitzme

Steven_R said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?
> 
> We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.
> 
> The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.
Click to expand...


"suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "

Suppose that Santa Claus is real.  Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon.  Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.

We could suppose lot's of things.  They aren't going to happen.

"The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"

No it isn't.  It never was.  You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.


----------



## Steven_R

It can't happen here...

...except when it has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)


----------



## earlycuyler

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
Click to expand...


Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.


----------



## Steven_R

itfitzme said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?
> 
> We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.
> 
> The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "
> 
> Suppose that Santa Claus is real.  Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon.  Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.
> 
> We could suppose lot's of things.  They aren't going to happen.
> 
> "The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"
> 
> No it isn't.  It never was.  You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.
Click to expand...


Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.


----------



## Bern80

Wry Catcher said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:
> 
> 1.  Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured.  Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner.  A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.
> 
> 2.  All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000.  A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3.  Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.
> 
> 4.  Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft.  Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person.  If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation.  How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?
Click to expand...


How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?


----------



## Bern80

itfitzme said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil.  Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?
> 
> We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.
> 
> The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "
> 
> Suppose that Santa Claus is real.  Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon.  Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.
> 
> We could suppose lot's of things.  They aren't going to happen.
> 
> "The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"
> 
> No it isn't.  It never was.  You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.
Click to expand...


Tyranny isn't going to happen in the U.S.? That's a pretty stupid thing to say since pretty much every government in history has trended that way.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
Click to expand...


Cite for us the Constitutional clause or amendment that gives you the right to smoke. Be specific.


----------



## oldfart

Steven_R said:


> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?



Do you have any idea how delusional you sound?  Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents?  And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

oldfart said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how delusional you sound?  Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents?  And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?
Click to expand...


So if the President declares he is Emperor and enough of the military agrees to let him hold it, you want us just to shrug our shoulders and accept it?


----------



## Steven_R

oldfart said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how delusional you sound?  Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents?  And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?
Click to expand...


There are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. Suppose 1/10 of 1% decide it is time to do something. That's 100,000 men. Christopher Dorner was one man who managed to shut down California for the better part of a week. You think 100,000 Christopher Dorners, many of who are trained and technologically knowledgeable, would do nothing more than stand and die?

I don't want Somalia, but if governments push they should expect to be pushed back in return. That was the final check and balance on the government, knowing that if it went too far really bad things can result. Unfortunately government get complacent and forget that, or they know what can happen and disarm the populace before it can get to the point where people say "enough" and have the means to enforce it.


----------



## itfitzme

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?
> 
> We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.
> 
> The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "
> 
> Suppose that Santa Claus is real.  Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon.  Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.
> 
> We could suppose lot's of things.  They aren't going to happen.
> 
> "The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"
> 
> No it isn't.  It never was.  You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.
Click to expand...


Delusional.  

Sure, "a more perfect union"...  oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.

Delusional.


----------



## bitterlyclingin

Comrade Barack, whose "Fundamental Transformation Of America" includes the bringing of the Westgate Mall to every mall in America. You gotta admire the Dems for their unflinching loyalty to Comrade Barack, though. They'll probably stay loyal to Comrade Barack right up to the moment the Jihadi in the mall on our soil here puts the barrel of his gun to their head a la Nairobi and blows their brains away.

Obama Guns to Terrorist | A.F.Branco | Conservative Cartoon


----------



## Bern80

itfitzme said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "
> 
> Suppose that Santa Claus is real.  Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon.  Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.
> 
> We could suppose lot's of things.  They aren't going to happen.
> 
> "The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"
> 
> No it isn't.  It never was.  You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Sure, "a more perfect union"...  oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.
> 
> Delusional.
Click to expand...


Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> oldfart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how delusional you sound?  Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents?  And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the President declares he is Emperor and enough of the military agrees to let him hold it, you want us just to shrug our shoulders and accept it?
Click to expand...


You seen our military lately?  You'd have no chance.  Thank the republicans for that.


----------



## Brain357

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Sure, "a more perfect union"...  oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?
Click to expand...


Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny.  Not even the anti gun euro countries have.  They should be the first right?


----------



## candycorn

earlycuyler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.
Click to expand...


Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want?  Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.


----------



## itfitzme

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Sure, "a more perfect union"...  oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?
Click to expand...


You.  You would be the one that is delusional.  You.  Seeing as you need to ask...you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want?  Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.
Click to expand...


Once again for the slow and stupid. The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right , so you can not do so on firearms without a new Supreme Court ruling, which will then open Voting up for punitive taxes again.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.
Click to expand...


Society has long taxed behavior it sees as damaging and encouraged behavior it sees as beneficial.  

Sorry you disagree with what I perceive as one or the other.  I tend to think of body counts in the thousands as bad things and you do not...but there is NO danger of anything I'm proposing getting passed in this day and age.    

Relax.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want?  Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid. The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right , so you can not do so on firearms without a new Supreme Court ruling, which will then open Voting up for punitive taxes again.
Click to expand...


Could happen; I didn't think the SC would uphold Obamacare...but it did.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically address the point in the op, please.  Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal.  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns?  You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun
Click to expand...


So, suppose you eliminate all guns from the USA for one moment.

1)  We don't have border security to the south, people walk across every day.  They can bring guns from Mexico

2)  Drugs come in from places from Columbia to Afghanistan evading our Coast Guard and air patrols.

And while you can't "grow" guns, you can make them.   The technology isn't that hard.  And the fact is now the country is full of guns.

So again whiff, you haven't explained at all why kids can get all the pot they want and yet you're saying that isn't so for guns when in fact not only can (and do) illegal guns come in all the time, but if we made them more illegal not only could gun runners do exactly what drug runners do, but hello, the drug runners could start running guns as well.

Tell me you never use the argument that legalizing alcohol brought down the mob and that's why the socons are so stupid for not legalizing drugs...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree; here is why.
> 
> We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns.  For better or worse; that will never change.  Nothing says they have to be cheap.
> 
> It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.
> 
> Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc...  and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.
> 
> Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation.  It will take a very long time but it will work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
Click to expand...


So what about answering my question this time?

Suppose we put a stiff tax on abortion.  Is that Constitutional?


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life.  There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our  brains.)
> 
> You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.
Click to expand...


1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?

2)  You don't know what a strawman is.

Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life.  There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our  brains.)
> 
> You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  You don't know what a strawman is.
> 
> Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?
Click to expand...


The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.

Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.

If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.


----------



## Nosmo King

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.

Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.

In short, make guns less lethal.

In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.

Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.

We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?


----------



## itfitzme

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you mean the poor can't afford everything they want?  Call 60 Minutes...that's big news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid. The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right , so you can not do so on firearms without a new Supreme Court ruling, which will then open Voting up for punitive taxes again.
Click to expand...


Do you have an actual reference for that?   I tried googling "supreme court punitive tax a right" and got nothing relevant.  And there is the simple fact that cigarettes are taxed up the wazzo, obviously punitively.  Sin tax is the term.

So do you have a reference?  I can't buy it unless we can cite a case. It just isn't making any sense.  There has to be more to it than just a simple " The Courts ruled that you can not punitively tax a right".  Seems to general.  It makes sense in some regards, but in reality it isn't.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life.  There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our  brains.)
> 
> You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  You don't know what a strawman is.
> 
> Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
Click to expand...


I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.



itfitzme said:


> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.



Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?


----------



## kaz

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.
> 
> Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.
> 
> In short, make guns less lethal.
> 
> In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.
> 
> Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.
> 
> We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?
Click to expand...


Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?

So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?


----------



## Bern80

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Sure, "a more perfect union"...  oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny.  Not even the anti gun euro countries have.  They should be the first right?
Click to expand...


I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  You don't know what a strawman is.
> 
> Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
Click to expand...


@ Ifitzme

He did this little two step with me also.  They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee.  Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".

He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.  

My plan is less criminals. 

A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
D: End government managed welfare.
E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
F: Throw the insane into "homes" for the insane.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  You don't know what a strawman is.
> 
> Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
Click to expand...


Yeah, you did.  That is exactly the implication of your post.   Other people aren't as stupid as you want to believe.  I know that living in the land of denial is a nice place for you, but no one else does.


----------



## Brain357

Bern80 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny.  Not even the anti gun euro countries have.  They should be the first right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
Click to expand...


Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
Click to expand...



I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  You don't know what a strawman is.
> 
> Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
Click to expand...


What do you imagine you are talking about?


----------



## itfitzme

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @ Ifitzme
> 
> He did this little two step with me also.  They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee.  Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".
> 
> He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life.  There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our  brains.)
> 
> You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  What "absolute" argument are you talking about?
> 
> 2)  You don't know what a strawman is.
> 
> Were you responding to my post or the voices in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
Click to expand...


Strict repressive gun laws don't work. Or explain the crime and murder rates in Chicago, NYC and Washington DC. Or perhaps the murder and crime rates in Russia, South Africa, Mexico and even England?

It is not absolutes that are the problem it is the abject failure of repressive laws to curb violence and murder. Where such laws are enforce crime is higher, violence is higher and murder is higher then where less restrictive gun laws are in place.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny.  Not even the anti gun euro countries have.  They should be the first right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
Click to expand...


Egypt?


----------



## Steven_R

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny.  Not even the anti gun euro countries have.  They should be the first right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
Click to expand...


Germany in 1933 was a democracy. Arguably Venezuela under Chavez. Technically Cuba is a democracy as is Egypt and China. 

The point isn't that the US is going to be a tyranny tomorrow, just that it could and the reset button is the Second Amendment. It can and has happened here, albeit on local levels, but the federal government has done some questionable things of late.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Egypt?
Click to expand...


Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you imagine you are talking about?
Click to expand...


I'm talking about gun laws, the part about perfect solutions came from you.  And only you.


----------



## Steven_R

Chile under Pinochet, but then again so was Chile under Allende.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.
> 
> Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.
> 
> In short, make guns less lethal.
> 
> In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.
> 
> Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.
> 
> We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
Click to expand...


You are using the stupid "If the law can be violated the there shouldn't be a law" argument.

Seeing as people still speed, then we shouldn't has speed limits.

Seeing as an education can't make you think intelligently, we shouldn't have schools.

We should start by putting you in a mental institution, under constant supervision.  That will go along ways to increasing the average IQ of the labor force.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Society has long taxed behavior it sees as damaging and encouraged behavior it sees as beneficial.
> 
> Sorry you disagree with what I perceive as one or the other.  I tend to think of body counts in the thousands as bad things and you do not...but there is NO danger of anything I'm proposing getting passed in this day and age.
> 
> Relax.
Click to expand...


On the contrary. It is YOU who does not think about the body counts. Outlawing guns is not the logical response of someone who is concerned with that. The logical response would be to look at the root causes of violence, not focus solely on the object with which violence is carried out. You would also to a better job of priortizing these things that supposedly cause death. Guns are pretty low on the list of inanimate objects involved in injury and death in the U.S. Cars are significantly above guns in that respect. Why is it you are not motivated to ban those. To use your own words and simply changing a noun; The harder you make it to own a car, the fewer of them there will be and less death and injury as a result.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.
Click to expand...


Let me guess A-E affect you directly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
Click to expand...


Germany 1933. Greece 1946 to 48. Italy in what ever year Mussolini took over.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you assume that anyone expects any law, including a gun law, to absolutely end all gun violence.  Then, the part where you argue against this absolute strawman position that no one is taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you had any voice in your head, one that might resemble a stream of consciousness and intelligent thinking, it would help you.
> 
> If you find that you don't like your bullshit arguments critiqued, you shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @ Ifitzme
> 
> He did this little two step with me also.  They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee.  Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".
> 
> He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more
Click to expand...


Backward, actually, you did this little  two step with me also.  You put "ending all violence" in quotes.  So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."

Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid.  Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.


----------



## itfitzme

Steven_R said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany in 1933 was a democracy. Arguably Venezuela under Chavez. Technically Cuba is a democracy as is Egypt and China.
> 
> The point isn't that the US is going to be a tyranny tomorrow, just that it could and the reset button is the Second Amendment. It can and has happened here, albeit on local levels, but the federal government has done some questionable things of late.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, if it were Germany in 1933, you would be the first on in line doing the goose step.  The problem is that you beleif that you stockpiling guns will have any effect at all is a complete delusion.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
> F: Throw the insane into "homes" for the insane.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a plan as long as it goes with ending our inane and useless gun laws.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
> F: Throw the insane into "homes" for the insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like a plan as long as it goes with ending our inane and useless gun laws.
Click to expand...


We need useful gun laws.  For example, it should be legal to shoot socialists.


----------



## Brain357

Steven_R said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Germany in 1933 was a democracy. Arguably Venezuela under Chavez. Technically Cuba is a democracy as is Egypt and China.
> 
> The point isn't that the US is going to be a tyranny tomorrow, just that it could and the reset button is the Second Amendment. It can and has happened here, albeit on local levels, but the federal government has done some questionable things of late.
Click to expand...


Germany in 1933 isn't modern.  And it was hardly established or stable.  Germany was fresh out of World War I.


----------



## Bern80

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.
> 
> Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.
> 
> In short, make guns less lethal.
> 
> In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.
> 
> Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.
> 
> We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using the stupid "If the law can be violated the there shouldn't be a law" argument.
> 
> Seeing as people still speed, then we shouldn't has speed limits.
> 
> Seeing as an education can't make you think intelligently, we shouldn't have schools.
> 
> We should start by putting you in a mental institution, under constant supervision.  That will go along ways to increasing the average IQ of the labor force.
Click to expand...


that is not the argument. The argument is some people don't care about the ramifications of breaking those laws. For these people the law may as well not exist becuase it doesn't factor into their decisions making. No one is saying there shouldn't be punishment for breaking laws, simply that for some people the punishment is not a deterrent. We're trying to get you to see the paradox you've set up with this more regulatio nonsense. 

We all agree that some people break laws. Because they do so we can conclude the punishment for breaking said law was not an adequate means of preventing the person from doing so. Given the severity of punishment for killing someone at all, why does it seem logical that a new law with a less severe punishment is going to deter an individual where the harsher punishment did not. It's nonsensical.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> We should start by putting you in a mental institution, under constant supervision.  That will go along ways to increasing the average IQ of the labor force.



It will increase unemployment as everyone who works for me would become unemployed.

Explains a lot, doesn't it? I'm a ... wait for it .... greedy capitalist ...


----------



## Bern80

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
Click to expand...


Why limit it to democracies? Why shouldn't any country under tyranical rule count?


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a strawman, it's in red.  No one said that but you.  The next post will not be you showing any quote I said that since I never did.  That was you, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get your good cry out, little girl?  I think you're the one who needs to be questioning whether you should be posting.  Want a hankie to wipe the tears off your cheeks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @ Ifitzme
> 
> He did this little two step with me also.  They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee.  Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".
> 
> He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Backward, actually, you did this little  two step with me also.  You put "ending all violence" in quotes.  So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."
> 
> Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid.  Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.
Click to expand...


Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.

So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.

As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.

I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany 1933. Greece 1946 to 48. Italy in what ever year Mussolini took over.
Click to expand...


So nothing modern or with an established democracy?


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ Ifitzme
> 
> He did this little two step with me also.  They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee.  Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".
> 
> He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backward, actually, you did this little  two step with me also.  You put "ending all violence" in quotes.  So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."
> 
> Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid.  Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.
> 
> So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.
> 
> As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.
> 
> I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.
Click to expand...


Gotta admire the consistent stupidity of libtards.  Gun free zones in which only criminals are armed.  idiots: 1) libtards


----------



## Steven_R

Let's just skip to the end of the moving goalposts dance and you go ahead and define a modern democracy, shall we?


----------



## Brain357

Bern80 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why limit it to democracies? Why shouldn't any country under tyranical rule count?
Click to expand...


Because were talking about the USA turning to tyranny.  We are a long and established democracy, it will never happen.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> @ Ifitzme
> 
> He did this little two step with me also.  They will describe "ending all violence" to a tee.  Then when you catch them they claim that in order to me ALL he has to specifically say the word "all".
> 
> He's been at it for at least 13 pages or more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backward, actually, you did this little  two step with me also.  You put "ending all violence" in quotes.  So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."
> 
> Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid.  Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.
> 
> So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.
> 
> As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.
> 
> I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.
Click to expand...


I'll dumb it down for you as far as I can, though it probably won't be enough.

Gun laws only prevent honest people from having guns because honest people follow the law.  They don't prevent criminals from getting guns since criminals don't follow the law.

So, it seems to be a bit of an issue that repeatedly criminals kill honest people, and the honest people can't defend themselves because the law actually stops them from protecting themselves.

It's also a violation of the Constitution, but it seems like going past simple observation of the world around us and basic logic would solve the problems alone.

I didn't dumb it down enough, did I?


----------



## RKMBrown

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why limit it to democracies? Why shouldn't any country under tyranical rule count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because were talking about the USA turning to tyranny.  We are a long and established democracy, it will never happen.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause martial law has never happened in this or any other country.


----------



## Brain357

Steven_R said:


> Let's just skip to the end of the moving goalposts dance and you go ahead and define a modern democracy, shall we?



How about the present to 30 years ago.  And democracy has to be established not like Egypt.  Haha


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why limit it to democracies? Why shouldn't any country under tyranical rule count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because were talking about the USA turning to tyranny.  We are a long and established democracy, it will never happen.
Click to expand...


a modern democracy is where majority gets their way, as long as liberal judges agree the majority made the right choice.  if they didn't, the judges correct it for them.


----------



## Steven_R

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your joking?  How about established democracies similar to ours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why limit it to democracies? Why shouldn't any country under tyranical rule count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because were talking about the USA turning to tyranny.  We are a long and established democracy, it will never happen.
Click to expand...


"It can't happen here..."


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me guess A-E affect you directly.
Click to expand...


So, anyone that doesn't have a family is a vagrant?  Any one in between jobs?

Anyone not employeed by someone else?  Contract workers between gigs?


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess A-E affect you directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, anyone that doesn't have a family is a vagrant?  Any one in between jobs?
> 
> Anyone not employeed by someone else?  Contract workers between gigs?
Click to expand...


Do I really have to educate you regarding the concept of vagrancy laws?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vagrancy/


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backward, actually, you did this little  two step with me also.  You put "ending all violence" in quotes.  So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."
> 
> Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid.  Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.
> 
> So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.
> 
> As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.
> 
> I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll dumb it down for you as far as I can, though it probably won't be enough.
> 
> Gun laws only prevent honest people from having guns because honest people follow the law.  They don't prevent criminals from getting guns since criminals don't follow the law.
> 
> So, it seems to be a bit of an issue that repeatedly criminals kill honest people, and the honest people can't defend themselves because the law actually stops them from protecting themselves.
> 
> It's also a violation of the Constitution, but it seems like going past simple observation of the world around us and basic logic would solve the problems alone.
> 
> I didn't dumb it down enough, did I?
Click to expand...


Yeah, you just said exactly what I said you said.  If people will break the law, why have a law.  After all, the law has to work absolutely perfectly, or it's useless.

What is really scary is that you actually believe yourself and don't get that you making a bullshit argument against a bullshit strawman that is absolutionist.  And you think you actually make sense.

Or is it you position that all laws that have been ignored by criminals shoud be eliminated.  Afterall,  if we have traffic laws then only criminals will speed and run stopsign.

Geeze, you are really fin insane.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.
> 
> So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.
> 
> As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.
> 
> I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll dumb it down for you as far as I can, though it probably won't be enough.
> 
> Gun laws only prevent honest people from having guns because honest people follow the law.  They don't prevent criminals from getting guns since criminals don't follow the law.
> 
> So, it seems to be a bit of an issue that repeatedly criminals kill honest people, and the honest people can't defend themselves because the law actually stops them from protecting themselves.
> 
> It's also a violation of the Constitution, but it seems like going past simple observation of the world around us and basic logic would solve the problems alone.
> 
> I didn't dumb it down enough, did I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just said exactly what I said you said.  If people will break the law, why have a law.  After all, the law has to work absolutely perfectly, or it's useless.
> 
> What is really scary is that you actually believe yourself and don't get that you making a bullshit argument against a bullshit strawman that is absolutionist.  And you think you actually make sense.
> 
> Or is it you position that all laws that have been ignored by criminals shoud be eliminated.  Afterall,  if we have traffic laws then only criminals will speed and run stopsign.
> 
> Geeze, you are really fin insane.
Click to expand...


God you are retarded.  The equivalent would be banning cars from the roads because some crazy nut might use a car to go on a rampage running over pedestrians.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess A-E affect you directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, anyone that doesn't have a family is a vagrant?  Any one in between jobs?
> 
> Anyone not employeed by someone else?  Contract workers between gigs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do I really have to educate you regarding the concept of vagrancy laws?
> 
> Vagrancy Law & Legal Definition
Click to expand...


So you can't explain yourself.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backward, actually, you did this little  two step with me also.  You put "ending all violence" in quotes.  So show me the post where any of us said "ending all violence."
> 
> Going into a discussion and assigning the other side the task of providing a perfect solution is just stupid.  Which is why you to simpletons came up with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.
> 
> So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.
> 
> As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.
> 
> I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta admire the consistent stupidity of libtards.  Gun free zones in which only criminals are armed.  idiots: 1) libtards
Click to expand...


So that'll work for you, just imagine the problem is that anyone that dissagrees with you is an idiot liberal.  Then you can jerk youself off to the sound of your own voice.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> I've sifted through a few pages on this thread and I've seen a lot of deflection and vague insults, some of the traditional name-calling, but I'm not quite sure I've encountered a clear plan.
> 
> Is there a plan?  And if so, please include how you intend on getting out of the hands of criminals, precisely, thanks.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
Click to expand...


If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.  

This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product. 

Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.


----------



## Yurt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
Click to expand...


LINK

or stfu


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll dumb it down for you as far as I can, though it probably won't be enough.
> 
> Gun laws only prevent honest people from having guns because honest people follow the law.  They don't prevent criminals from getting guns since criminals don't follow the law.
> 
> So, it seems to be a bit of an issue that repeatedly criminals kill honest people, and the honest people can't defend themselves because the law actually stops them from protecting themselves.
> 
> It's also a violation of the Constitution, but it seems like going past simple observation of the world around us and basic logic would solve the problems alone.
> 
> I didn't dumb it down enough, did I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just said exactly what I said you said.  If people will break the law, why have a law.  After all, the law has to work absolutely perfectly, or it's useless.
> 
> What is really scary is that you actually believe yourself and don't get that you making a bullshit argument against a bullshit strawman that is absolutionist.  And you think you actually make sense.
> 
> Or is it you position that all laws that have been ignored by criminals shoud be eliminated.  Afterall,  if we have traffic laws then only criminals will speed and run stopsign.
> 
> Geeze, you are really fin insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are retarded.  The equivalent would be banning cars from the roads because some crazy nut might use a car to go on a rampage running over pedestrians.
Click to expand...


No it wouldn't you fin uneducated inbred. Your equivalent would be to eliminate traffic laws because someome went on a rampage with a car.  

And no one needs a firearm to drive to work.


----------



## Yurt

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll dumb it down for you as far as I can, though it probably won't be enough.
> 
> Gun laws only prevent honest people from having guns because honest people follow the law.  They don't prevent criminals from getting guns since criminals don't follow the law.
> 
> So, it seems to be a bit of an issue that repeatedly criminals kill honest people, and the honest people can't defend themselves because the law actually stops them from protecting themselves.
> 
> It's also a violation of the Constitution, but it seems like going past simple observation of the world around us and basic logic would solve the problems alone.
> 
> I didn't dumb it down enough, did I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just said exactly what I said you said.  If people will break the law, why have a law.  After all, the law has to work absolutely perfectly, or it's useless.
> 
> What is really scary is that you actually believe yourself and don't get that you making a bullshit argument against a bullshit strawman that is absolutionist.  And you think you actually make sense.
> 
> Or is it you position that all laws that have been ignored by criminals shoud be eliminated.  Afterall,  if we have traffic laws then only criminals will speed and run stopsign.
> 
> Geeze, you are really fin insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God you are retarded.  The equivalent would be banning cars from the roads because some crazy nut might use a car to go on a rampage running over pedestrians.
Click to expand...


exactly


----------



## JoeB131

KGB said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yaaa liarberals what is your plan, idea or scheme to keep criminals from obtaining guns ? disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals will reform themselves ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Prohibition work back in the 20s?
Click to expand...


Depends how you define "work".  

Did alcohol consumption drop considerably?  Yes.  Yes it did.  

Did it completely end?  Nope.  

The problem with Prohibition is that people just didn't know what the hell they were passing.  They thought it was an anti-Immigrant measure.  Those nice white protestants were horrified to find that they couldn't get drinks anymore, either.


----------



## JoeB131

Yurt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> or stfu
Click to expand...


So, um, why would anyone produce a gun like the Mack-10, which is pretty much specifically designed for hoodlums?


----------



## itfitzme

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
Click to expand...


Gun owner insurance is an excellent idea.  But I don't suppose he's  genuine enough to agree to it.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot is completely illegal.  Yet it's everywhere.  Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns.  Here you go.  You make guns illegal, then...  and it doesn't work with pot because...
Click to expand...


Pot Grows in the ground. 

Guns have to be manufactured.


----------



## Yurt

JoeB131 said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals have guns because everyone else does.
> 
> Take away private gun ownership, the criminals won't be able to get them, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Prohibition work back in the 20s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends how you define "work".
> 
> Did alcohol consumption drop considerably?  Yes.  Yes it did.
> 
> Did it completely end?  Nope.
> 
> The problem with Prohibition is that people just didn't know what the hell they were passing.  They thought it was an anti-Immigrant measure.  Those nice white protestants were horrified to find that they couldn't get drinks anymore, either.
Click to expand...


Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf


----------



## Yurt

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is completely illegal.  Yet it's everywhere.  Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns.  Here you go.  You make guns illegal, then...  and it doesn't work with pot because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot Grows in the ground.
> 
> Guns have to be manufactured.
Click to expand...


cocaine....its illegal status sure didn't stop obama from partaking in "blow"

moron


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is completely illegal.  Yet it's everywhere.  Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns.  Here you go.  You make guns illegal, then...  and it doesn't work with pot because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot Grows in the ground.
> 
> Guns have to be manufactured.
Click to expand...

Or you could just print one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMzGuboH9o]Plastic Guns - How Soon Until Criminals Use Them? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme

Yurt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> or stfu
Click to expand...


Because, if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist.

Hey, God isn't on the internet.  So there is proof God doesn't exist.


----------



## Yurt

JoeB131 said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> or stfu
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, um, why would anyone produce a gun like the Mack-10, which is pretty much specifically designed for hoodlums?
Click to expand...


link to the NRA marketing....

we both know you don't have anything so you will continue to deflect and lie


----------



## Yurt

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> or stfu
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Hey, God isn't on the internet.  So there is proof God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


so you admit the NRA doesn't have a single ad on the internet to support joe's claim.....


----------



## itfitzme

Yurt said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just said exactly what I said you said.  If people will break the law, why have a law.  After all, the law has to work absolutely perfectly, or it's useless.
> 
> What is really scary is that you actually believe yourself and don't get that you making a bullshit argument against a bullshit strawman that is absolutionist.  And you think you actually make sense.
> 
> Or is it you position that all laws that have been ignored by criminals shoud be eliminated.  Afterall,  if we have traffic laws then only criminals will speed and run stopsign.
> 
> Geeze, you are really fin insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God you are retarded.  The equivalent would be banning cars from the roads because some crazy nut might use a car to go on a rampage running over pedestrians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> exactly
Click to expand...


The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.

See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.
> 
> So do tell, what is it that yoi really mean, if not that liberals expect all gun violence to end by implementing gun laws.
> 
> As we are so misunderstanding you, be sure to be clear.  We sure wouldn't want to misrepresent your bullshit.
> 
> I predict you won't just simply state it in a clear manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta admire the consistent stupidity of libtards.  Gun free zones in which only criminals are armed.  idiots: 1) libtards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that'll work for you, just imagine the problem is that anyone that dissagrees with you is an idiot liberal.  Then you can jerk youself off to the sound of your own voice.
Click to expand...


I disagree with republicans just as often as I disagree with democrats..  Gun control, however, is most certainly a libtard plank.  Oh.. and get your mind off my penis... jezzz


----------



## Yurt

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you are retarded.  The equivalent would be banning cars from the roads because some crazy nut might use a car to go on a rampage running over pedestrians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
Click to expand...


driving is not a right, it is a privilege

law, learn it, embrace it


----------



## itfitzme

Yurt said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> or stfu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Hey, God isn't on the internet.  So there is proof God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you admit the NRA doesn't have a single ad on the internet to support joe's claim.....
Click to expand...


No, I admit that it doesn't have to be on the internet to be true and that there is no such thing as God.

God are you dense.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Criminals have guns because EVERYONE ELSE has guns.
Click to expand...


WRONG!

Criminals have guns because they procure them on the black market, Joe. Which means if you take away everyone's guns, there will still be murders and gun crimes. This statement is the epitome of the liberal gun control agenda. What is served when everyone is unarmed except the criminal you wish to disarm?

Your logic is flawed.


----------



## itfitzme

Yurt said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> driving is not a right, it is a privilege
> 
> law, learn it, embrace it
Click to expand...


Guns aren't a right either.  The right to bear arms doesn't mean you.  A right can be regulated.  And insured.  And resricted.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> God you are retarded.  The equivalent would be banning cars from the roads because some crazy nut might use a car to go on a rampage running over pedestrians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  You already need a license to "hunt" with guns.  I can own a car without driving it on public roads, a license is not required on private property.  I already have to register if I'm gonna CC.  No ban required.  I already have homeowners insurance, auto insurance etc.  Neither of which are a BAN on home-ownership or driving.

Are you used to being wrong all the time? Or is this a new thing for you?


----------



## itfitzme

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So, the plan for getting guns out of the hands of criminals...?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Criminals have guns because EVERYONE ELSE has guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG!
> 
> Criminals have guns because they procure them on the black market, Joe. Which means if you take away everyone's guns, there will still be murders and gun crimes. This statement is the epitome of the liberal gun control agenda. What is served when everyone is unarmed except the criminal you wish to disarm?
> 
> Your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...


Since when did the black market not include all manufacturers?  Yeah, right... they only buy the "illegal" guns.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  You already need a license to "hunt" with guns.  I can own a car without driving it on public roads, a license is not required on private property.  I already have to register if I'm gonna CC.  No ban required.  I already have homeowners insurance, auto insurance etc.  Neither of which are a BAN on home-ownership or driving.
Click to expand...


You still have to register it as non-op.  When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.  No liscence, no registration, no using it.

Hey, great idea...  If you can get it to your private property without it being on the public areas. great.


I'm just saying, equivalence is all the components are equivalent.  The car analogy was your idea.

I haven't argued in favor of anything, just logic, intelligence, and against your bullshit.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driving is not a right, it is a privilege
> 
> law, learn it, embrace it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns aren't a right either.  The right to bear arms doesn't mean you.  A right can be regulated.  And insured.  And resricted.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Wrong.  Duh.  Duh.  What does resricted mean?


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get them out of the hands of everyone else.
> 
> Simple enough.
> 
> Criminals have guns because EVERYONE ELSE has guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG!
> 
> Criminals have guns because they procure them on the black market, Joe. Which means if you take away everyone's guns, there will still be murders and gun crimes. This statement is the epitome of the liberal gun control agenda. What is served when everyone is unarmed except the criminal you wish to disarm?
> 
> Your logic is flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when did the black market not include all manufacturers?  Yeah, right... they only buy the "illegal" guns.
Click to expand...


The point is that if they can buy illegal guns, they can still buy guns.  And by definition honest citizens can't.  Which means only the criminals are left with guns.  It's an improvement on your system now where the blood and guts of women and children are splattered across walls as psychos know, correctly thanks to you, that no one will be shooting back.  Nice job there, thanks to you any tragic shooting is one snap from becoming a massacre.  Liberals are sick people.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  You already need a license to "hunt" with guns.  I can own a car without driving it on public roads, a license is not required on private property.  I already have to register if I'm gonna CC.  No ban required.  I already have homeowners insurance, auto insurance etc.  Neither of which are a BAN on home-ownership or driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have to register it as non-op.  When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.
Click to expand...


Registration is not a ban.  Purchasing is the opposite of a ban.  Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier.  The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.


----------



## itfitzme

Gtg


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> driving is not a right, it is a privilege
> 
> law, learn it, embrace it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns aren't a right either.  The right to bear arms doesn't mean you.  A right can be regulated.  And insured.  And resricted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Wrong.  Duh.  Duh.  What does resricted mean?
Click to expand...


Right, right right.  Duh, duh...  That's a great argument.

Restricted, to begin, means you personally don't get one because your a vagrant.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  You already need a license to "hunt" with guns.  I can own a car without driving it on public roads, a license is not required on private property.  I already have to register if I'm gonna CC.  No ban required.  I already have homeowners insurance, auto insurance etc.  Neither of which are a BAN on home-ownership or driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have to register it as non-op.  When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Registration is not a ban.  Purchasing is the opposite of a ban.  Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier.  The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.
Click to expand...


Then we agree.  You can have a gun if you are not a vagrant, transport it directly to your private residence, and keep it there.  And, as long as it is impossible accidental discharge into a public area, you can have ammo.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Complete and thorough background checks.
> 2) Full liability for gun manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products.
> 3) Gun buy-backs and stricter licensing.
> 4) Required insurance for gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
Click to expand...


That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence. You know as well as I do if we simply substitute the noun gun with cars your statement becomes preposterous which is why you have to lie about the NRA and gun manufacturer's now.


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot is completely illegal.  Yet it's everywhere.  Stop dodging and explain why the same wouldn't happen with guns.  Here you go.  You make guns illegal, then...  and it doesn't work with pot because...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot Grows in the ground.
> 
> Guns have to be manufactured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you could just print one.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMzGuboH9o]Plastic Guns - How Soon Until Criminals Use Them? - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Yeah, it'll be very funny when the blow up in the faces of crooks.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To #2, rightwinger brought this up so I pose the same question. Should Ford be held liable if a drunk driver kills someone who was driving their product?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering you need 66% of congress and 75% of the states to get "major restrictions" those numbers mean squat.
> 
> And again, polls are useless, because the way you ask the question contributes to the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again.
> 
> Then you'd better be worried about polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you jack off at night over the thought of 5 out of 9 people lording over your daily life, and deciding what is your right, and what is it?
Click to expand...


Guy, you are the one who wants to hide behind Heller every time you see a poll that shows that 94% want stricter background checks and 70% would increase the amount of restrictions on guns.  

I'd say, leave it to the people. Let's have national plebasites on this shit.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still have to register it as non-op.  When you purchase a car, you have to liscence and insure it before you drive it off the lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Registration is not a ban.  Purchasing is the opposite of a ban.  Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier.  The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then we agree.  You can have a gun if you are not a vagrant, transport it directly to your private residence, and keep it there.  And, as long as it is impossible accidental discharge into a public area, you can have ammo.
Click to expand...


Do you practice at being an idiot or does it come naturally?

I have lots of gun.  Want to see?  Why don't you walk your vagrant ass over to my place, I'll show em to ya. You want to steal my lawn mower (tractor) cause I might drive it on a public road?  ROFL why don't you lie in the road and see if that stops me.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc).  Leftists do that.  Know the difference.


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Bing. Fucking. Go.  There's the issue.


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc).  Leftists do that.  Know the difference.
Click to expand...

by that definition democrats are not the party of modern liberals... huh?  Dude if you want to use liberal in the classic sense you have to say classic liberals.  Liberals of today are the leftist democrats.  Democrats and the media redefined the term to mean libtard.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc).  Leftists do that.  Know the difference.
Click to expand...


I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well.  There is nothing liberal about liberals.  The "liberals" are authoritarians.    But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same.  You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.

I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Registration is not a ban.  Purchasing is the opposite of a ban.  Cars can be "transported" to private property via a car carrier.  The purchaser does not have to have a license or insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we agree.  You can have a gun if you are not a vagrant, transport it directly to your private residence, and keep it there.  And, as long as it is impossible accidental discharge into a public area, you can have ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you practice at being an idiot or does it come naturally?
> 
> I have lots of gun.  Want to see?  Why don't you walk your vagrant ass over to my place, I'll show em to ya. You want to steal my lawn mower (tractor) cause I might drive it on a public road?  ROFL why don't you lie in the road and see if that stops me.
Click to expand...


This is the internet age.  Idiots are no longer confined to ply their trade in only one village...


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc).  Leftists do that.  Know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> by that definition democrats are not the party of modern liberals... huh?  Dude if you want to use liberal in the classic sense you have to say classic liberals.  Liberals of today are the leftist democrats.
Click to expand...


Only if you want your words to mean different things depending on what's convenient at the time, dood.

Hey, that's the price of demonization.  Should have thought about that beforehand.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc).  Leftists do that.  Know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well.  There is nothing liberal about liberals.  The "liberals" are authoritarians.    But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same.  You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.
> 
> I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.
Click to expand...


There is nothing "liberal" about authoritarianism.  They're polar opposites.

I didn't "chastize" you -- I corrected you.  When I chastize you, you'll know it.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't support gun laws (or drug laws, etc).  Leftists do that.  Know the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well.  There is nothing liberal about liberals.  The "liberals" are authoritarians.    But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same.  You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.
> 
> I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing "liberal" about authoritarianism.  They're polar opposites.
> 
> I didn't "chastize" you -- I corrected you.  When I chastize you, you'll know it.
Click to expand...


You said "know the difference."  I do, but again, calling people liberal who call themselves liberal isn't not knowing the difference.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driving is not a right, it is a privilege
> 
> law, learn it, embrace it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns aren't a right either.  The right to bear arms doesn't mean you.  A right can be regulated.  And insured.  And resricted.
Click to expand...


The Courts disagree with you. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. By the way? Why are you ignoring me? I repeat New York, Chicago and Washington DC prove that strict gun control does not work. Russia, Mexico, South Africa and even England prove that strict gun control does not work. Why do I say that? because around them are cities counties States and Countries with less strict gun laws with less crime, violence and murder. In fact less control against law abiding citizens leads to less crime, less violence and less murder. Shall I cite the studies again?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> or stfu
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, if it isn't on the internet, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Hey, God isn't on the internet.  So there is proof God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Ok provide a link to a print ad or a TV ad or a radio ad that has the NRA or gun manufactures marketing to crazies.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a classic liberal, I know the difference in the terms well.  There is nothing liberal about liberals.  The "liberals" are authoritarians.    But theoretical arguments about what words mean is irrelevant when they all walk and quack the same.  You're going to be hard pressed to give more than a few actual examples in American politics of the difference.
> 
> I agree with your point, but a more productive way to bring it up would be to not ignore how people use the term, but say they use it wrong, rather than doing things like chastising me for calling people who call themselves liberal liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "liberal" about authoritarianism.  They're polar opposites.
> 
> I didn't "chastize" you -- I corrected you.  When I chastize you, you'll know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "know the difference."  I do, but again, calling people liberal who call themselves liberal isn't not knowing the difference.
Click to expand...


I guess I missed your examples thereof, but then I just got here.
In any case, continuing a fallacious definition when you know it to be fallacious isn't exactly the smartest plan, is it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bing. Fucking. Go.  There's the issue.
Click to expand...


That does not advertise for crazies or criminals. As you know full well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I repeat, since you dumb asses choice to ignore it. Washington DC, New York and Chicago prove that strict gun control does not work. Russia, South Africa, Mexico and even England prove that strict gun control does not work. All around these areas are cities, states and Countries with less strict gun control and less crime, violence and murder. In fact studies show that less strict laws that allow law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms leads to less crime, less violence and less murder. Already posted them and you all ignore them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.


That's because liberals are more than happy to use the blood of innocent people to push their anti0gun agenda - they know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, so they -need- such tragedies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Can't respond I see.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bing. Fucking. Go.  There's the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not advertise for crazies or criminals. As you know full well.
Click to expand...

Pogo, like all the other anti-gun loons, does not have the capacity to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty  - so, be nice and cut him some slack.


----------



## Yurt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


so man cards are only issued to criminals and crazies?  

how desperate you are to prove a point that we both know is false.


----------



## Yurt

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driving is not a right, it is a privilege
> 
> law, learn it, embrace it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns aren't a right either.  The right to bear arms doesn't mean you.  A right can be regulated.  And insured.  And resricted.
Click to expand...


the supreme court of our great nation says otherwise

pay attention


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bing. Fucking. Go.  There's the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not advertise for crazies or criminals. As you know full well.
Click to expand...


It advertises directly to testosterone.  Same difference.

As somebody very recently put it, they're more than happy to use the blood of innocent people to push their gun-as-personal-defense agenda - they know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, so they -need- such tragedies.  "Be afraid, be very afraid -- then buy our gun and fear no more".

Stupefying how many people will swallow that hook line and sinker.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bing. Fucking. Go.  There's the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not advertise for crazies or criminals. As you know full well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It advertises directly to testosterone.  Same difference.
> 
> As somebody very recently put it, they're more than happy to use the blood of innocent people to push their gun-as-personal-defense agenda - they know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, so they -need- such tragedies.  "Be afraid, be very afraid -- then buy our gun and fear no more".
> 
> Stupefying how many people will swallow that hook line and sinker.
Click to expand...


Funny how that ad says no such thing, in fact you can not link to one that does.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not advertise for crazies or criminals. As you know full well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It advertises directly to testosterone.  Same difference.
> 
> As somebody very recently put it, they're more than happy to use the blood of innocent people to push their gun-as-personal-defense agenda - they know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, so they -need- such tragedies.  "Be afraid, be very afraid -- then buy our gun and fear no more".
> 
> Stupefying how many people will swallow that hook line and sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how that ad says no such thing, in fact you can not link to one that does.
Click to expand...


What in the wide world of fuck do you think "man card" means?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It advertises directly to testosterone.  Same difference.
> 
> As somebody very recently put it, they're more than happy to use the blood of innocent people to push their gun-as-personal-defense agenda - they know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, so they -need- such tragedies.  "Be afraid, be very afraid -- then buy our gun and fear no more".
> 
> Stupefying how many people will swallow that hook line and sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how that ad says no such thing, in fact you can not link to one that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the wide world of fuck do you think "man card" means?
Click to expand...


So in your mind man card means crazies and criminals? I guess all those guys at football, basketball and Hockey games are crazies and criminals? It does not mean what you claim it means.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how that ad says no such thing, in fact you can not link to one that does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the wide world of fuck do you think "man card" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your mind man card means crazies and criminals? I guess all those guys at football, basketball and Hockey games are crazies and criminals? It does not mean what you claim it means.
Click to expand...


....huh?

re-read the progression and get back to me when you follow it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not advertise for crazies or criminals. As you know full well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It advertises directly to testosterone.  Same difference.
> 
> As somebody very recently put it, they're more than happy to use the blood of innocent people to push their gun-as-personal-defense agenda - they know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, so they -need- such tragedies.  "Be afraid, be very afraid -- then buy our gun and fear no more".
> 
> Stupefying how many people will swallow that hook line and sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how that ad says no such thing, *in fact you can not link to one that does*.
Click to expand...

And he knows it.
Like all the other anti-gun loons, he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or disonesty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the wide world of fuck do you think "man card" means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your mind man card means crazies and criminals? I guess all those guys at football, basketball and Hockey games are crazies and criminals? It does not mean what you claim it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....huh?
> 
> re-read the progression and get back to me when you follow it.
Click to expand...


Man card also is not code for fear and scare tactics.


----------



## boedicca

The Reactionary Liberal Plan to keep criminals from having guys:   turn everyone into a criminal.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in your mind man card means crazies and criminals? I guess all those guys at football, basketball and Hockey games are crazies and criminals? It does not mean what you claim it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....huh?
> 
> re-read the progression and get back to me when you follow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man card also is not code for fear and scare tactics.
Click to expand...


See post 430.
Don't strain yourself.


----------



## RKMBrown

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how that ad says no such thing, in fact you can not link to one that does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the wide world of fuck do you think "man card" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your mind man card means crazies and criminals? I guess all those guys at football, basketball and Hockey games are crazies and criminals? It does not mean what you claim it means.
Click to expand...


He's a libtard.  Anything "traditional" is bad.  Anything worth fighting for is bad. Women bearing children, bad.  Aborting children, good. Men fighting like men, bad. Men that act like girls, good. Butch women, good.

Right side up, bad.  Upside down, good.

You have to understand a libtard's goal is to destroy everything that is good.  Burn it all down, turn the rest upside down, worship satan not god.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- ONE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE- and the Second is about Militias again.
> 
> Then you'd better be worried about polls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you jack off at night over the thought of 5 out of 9 people lording over your daily life, and deciding what is your right, and what is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you are the one who wants to hide behind Heller every time you see a poll that shows that 94% want stricter background checks and 70% would increase the amount of restrictions on guns.
> 
> I'd say, leave it to the people. Let's have national plebasites on this shit.
Click to expand...


Shove your plebiscite up your ass. If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment do it the real way, 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states, or 3/4 of the states via conventions.

Any way else, piss off.


----------



## martybegan

itfitzme said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The equivalent would be liscencing guns, registering them with the DMV, and mandating insurance.
> 
> See how that equivalence thing works?  All the components are the same.  That is what equivalent means, not some absolutionist, catastrophizing, strawman bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driving is not a right, it is a privilege
> 
> law, learn it, embrace it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns aren't a right either.  The right to bear arms doesn't mean you.  A right can be regulated.  And insured.  And resricted.
Click to expand...


The right to bear arms means EXACTLY me. Its amazing how people can ignore the constitution when it suits them.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments.  Nice work.  Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote.  Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them.  Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that?  We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue.  The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry.  The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment.  Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.
> 
> Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation.  That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs.  Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves.  These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine.  That's your right.  But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what about answering my question this time?
> 
> Suppose we put a stiff tax on abortion.  Is that Constitutional?
Click to expand...


I would think it would be...yes.  

However, one is a retail sale and another is a medical procedure; not sure how you'd go about taxing some medical procedures more than others but; okay.  If you don't buy a gun, you go home and get upset.  If you can't get your fetus aborted, the lives of 2 human beings are irrevocably changed...  It's a bit of a false analogy.


----------



## candycorn

Brain357 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name some modern democracies that have gone to tyranny.  Not even the anti gun euro countries have.  They should be the first right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm simply going to answer that by asking if you've been watching the news at all lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I'm not aware of any modern democracies in danger of tyranny.  Name some.
Click to expand...


It could happen at any moment. In fact the last one was the CSA in 1860 or so.  The same one that a lot of the gun nuts are so proud of...and hope will come back ASAP.  Strange huh.


----------



## candycorn

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.
Click to expand...


The only way to preserve the 2nd Amendment is to do away with all of the lesser amendments like free speech, right to LL&H...flimsy ones.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society has long taxed behavior it sees as damaging and encouraged behavior it sees as beneficial.
> 
> Sorry you disagree with what I perceive as one or the other.  I tend to think of body counts in the thousands as bad things and you do not...but there is NO danger of anything I'm proposing getting passed in this day and age.
> 
> Relax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary. It is YOU who does not think about the body counts. Outlawing guns is not the logical response of someone who is concerned with that. The logical response would be to look at the root causes of violence, not focus solely on the object with which violence is carried out. You would also to a better job of priortizing these things that supposedly cause death. Guns are pretty low on the list of inanimate objects involved in injury and death in the U.S. Cars are significantly above guns in that respect. Why is it you are not motivated to ban those. To use your own words and simply changing a noun; The harder you make it to own a car, the fewer of them there will be and less death and injury as a result.
Click to expand...


Great, lets ban cars too.  Oh wait, the TT&L is unconstitutional since it prevents poor people from buying them.

This is how goofy the argument has gotten in the "defense" of life-robbing weapons.  

Cars, at least in most states, have to have liability insurance which, at least holds the drivers somewhat financially responsible for their WMDs.  Will you agree that there should be the same stipulation for gun owners and their WMDs then--if you're going to hold on to this analogy?


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you jack off at night over the thought of 5 out of 9 people lording over your daily life, and deciding what is your right, and what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are the one who wants to hide behind Heller every time you see a poll that shows that 94% want stricter background checks and 70% would increase the amount of restrictions on guns.
> 
> I'd say, leave it to the people. Let's have national plebasites on this shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shove your plebiscite up your ass. If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment do it the real way, 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states, or 3/4 of the states via conventions.
> 
> Any way else, piss off.
Click to expand...


Or Scalia dies. We appoint a non-mouth-breather to replace him and we pass sensible laws to "well-Regulate" that militia.  


GET IT?  


We don't to do ANYTHING to the Second Amendment to get gun control, guy.  


We just need to change attitudes.  And really, you gun nuts are ALREADY marginalizing yourselves.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> I repeat, since you dumb asses choice to ignore it. Washington DC, New York and Chicago prove that strict gun control does not work.



No, it proves that you need to have Gun control on a NATIONAL level, not a local one. 



RetiredGySgt said:


> Russia, South Africa, Mexico and even England prove that strict gun control does not work.



The UK only had 48 gunmurders last year.  Gun ownership is widespread in Russia and South Africa (Ranking 9th and 17th in Gun ownership). Mexico has a "Right to Bear Arms" in their constitution just like the US.   So all your examples are kind of bad.  




RetiredGySgt said:


> All around these areas are cities, states and Countries with less strict gun control and less crime, violence and murder. In fact studies show that less strict laws that allow law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms leads to less crime, less violence and less murder. Already posted them and you all ignore them.



All around these areas are places where not a lot of people live.   Greater density of people, more violence.  Human nature.  

But Japan has strict gun control and very limited gun ownership.  Despite being more densely crowded than the US, they had 11 gun murders in 2008.  

Germany has very strict gun registration.  They had only 258 gun murders.  

The US has very weak gun laws overall.  We had 11,101 Gun murders. 

We ain't doing it right.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you are the one who wants to hide behind Heller every time you see a poll that shows that 94% want stricter background checks and 70% would increase the amount of restrictions on guns.
> 
> I'd say, leave it to the people. Let's have national plebasites on this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shove your plebiscite up your ass. If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment do it the real way, 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states, or 3/4 of the states via conventions.
> 
> Any way else, piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or Scalia dies. We appoint a non-mouth-breather to replace him and we pass sensible laws to "well-Regulate" that militia.
> 
> 
> GET IT?
> 
> 
> We don't to do ANYTHING to the Second Amendment to get gun control, guy.
> 
> 
> We just need to change attitudes.  And really, you gun nuts are ALREADY marginalizing yourselves.
Click to expand...


Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.



Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.  

Never, ever, not once.  The day you fight the government, your neighbors will be cheering the govenrment because you were frightening their children.  

Now, for criminals, again, COMPARE the US to the other G-7 advanced industrialized democracies.  Hardly a "Utopian Fantasy".    

Japan bans guns. They only had 11 gun murders last year and less than 600 total murders. 

Japan is a real place.  It really exists.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.
Click to expand...


Are you an agent of the Government? There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. We only have a military of about 1.5 million men and women. You do the math, wiseass.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shove your plebiscite up your ass. If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment do it the real way, 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states, or 3/4 of the states via conventions.
> 
> Any way else, piss off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Scalia dies. We appoint a non-mouth-breather to replace him and we pass sensible laws to "well-Regulate" that militia.
> 
> 
> GET IT?
> 
> 
> We don't to do ANYTHING to the Second Amendment to get gun control, guy.
> 
> 
> We just need to change attitudes.  And really, you gun nuts are ALREADY marginalizing yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.
Click to expand...






You can't hide under a rock.


----------



## Brain357

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot Grows in the ground.
> 
> Guns have to be manufactured.
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could just print one.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSMzGuboH9o]Plastic Guns - How Soon Until Criminals Use Them? - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it'll be very funny when the blow up in the faces of crooks.
Click to expand...


Very expensive too.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an agent of the Government? There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. We only have a military of about 1.5 million men and women. You do the math, wiseass.
Click to expand...


I have. 


There are 80 million gun owners, most of who don't know what the fuck they are doing and have no business owning a gun to start with.  

But you see, that's the problem.  We have a gun industry that really thinks that a "Well-Regulated Militia" is Nancy Lanza prepping for the Zombie Apocolypse and taking her crazy son to the shooting range.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an agent of the Government? There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. We only have a military of about 1.5 million men and women. You do the math, wiseass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> There are 80 million gun owners, most of who don't know what the fuck they are doing and have no business owning a gun to start with.
> 
> But you see, that's the problem.  We have a gun industry that really thinks that a "Well-Regulated Militia" is Nancy Lanza prepping for the Zombie Apocolypse and taking her crazy son to the shooting range.
Click to expand...


Your argument has zero substance. Nothing but a vitriolic rant with no proof or hard evidence.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an agent of the Government? There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. We only have a military of about 1.5 million men and women. You do the math, wiseass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> There are 80 million gun owners, most of who don't know what the fuck they are doing and have no business owning a gun to start with.
> 
> But you see, that's the problem.  We have a gun industry that really thinks that a "Well-Regulated Militia" is Nancy Lanza prepping for the Zombie Apocolypse and taking her crazy son to the shooting range.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument has zero substance. Nothing but a vitriolic rant with no proof or hard evidence.
Click to expand...


Quite the contrary, the gun industry markets to the fringe now.  





> As I write about in my latest Rolling Stone feature, "The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction," the firearms industry is in trouble. Its best customers are old Southern white men who are already armed to the teeth. To prop up sales, gunmakers today are marketing military-bred weaponry to civilians  guns which the industry touts for their high-tech precision and "stopping power." The firearms industry is also working feverishly to broaden its customer base, seeking to put these deadly weapons in the hands of kids, women of all ages, and a generation of young men raised on the virtual firepower of video games like Call of Duty.
> 
> Read on for a gallery documenting how the most dangerous industry in America markets its wares.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: The Gun Industry's Nine Most Outrageous Marketing Ploys Pictures | Rolling Stone
> Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


----------



## JoeB131

The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone



> *For gunmakers, the political fight over assault rifles and high-capacity pistols is about more than just profits &#8211; it's about the militarization of the marketplace and represents a desperate bid by gunmakers to prop up a decaying business. The once-dependable market for traditional hunting guns has fallen off a cliff. To adapt, the firearms industry has embraced a business strategy that requires it to place the weapons of war favored by deranged killers like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner into the homes and holsters of as many Americans as possible. "They're not selling your dad's hunting rifle or shotgun," says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a top industry watchdog. "They're selling military-bred weaponry."
> 
> As recently as 2008, shotguns, rifles and other traditional hunting weapons made up half of all new civilian gun sales in America, according to SEC documents &#8211; a brisk billion-dollar business. Today, hunting guns account for less than a quarter of the market, and the hunting industry is forecasting a 24 percent drop in revenue by 2025. Gunmakers are on the wrong side of the same demographic curves that haunt the modern Republican Party. Its customer base is too old, too white, too male and too Southern. According to Gallup, 61 percent of white males in the South own guns today. Nationwide, just 18 percent of Latinos do. "The white males are aging and dying off," says Sugarmann. Flooding the market with battle-ready guns, he says, "is an effort to find one new, shiny thing to sell them."*


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.
> 
> Never, ever, not once.  The day you fight the government, your neighbors will be cheering the govenrment because you were frightening their children.
> 
> Now, for criminals, again, COMPARE the US to the other G-7 advanced industrialized democracies.  Hardly a "Utopian Fantasy".
> 
> Japan bans guns. They only had 11 gun murders last year and less than 600 total murders.
> 
> Japan is a real place.  It really exists.
Click to expand...


Japan does not have a minority crime/gang problem. Thier gangs are far more organized and discreet.

Japan has a huge suicide problem that dwarfs suicides in the US.

Comparing a monolithic culture such as Japan to a nation of immigrants such as ours is fail on your part.

Another JoePussy post about being a pussy.


----------



## Edgetho

From 'Rolling Stoned'?

Gimme a fucking break.

I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.

Know why?  Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....

Confiscation.  It's what dimocraps want.

Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....






And why not?  They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.

Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit.  They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.

They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.

But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.

ALL of them.  ALL.

And the honest ones......  My bad, there are no honest ones.  

We're talking dimocraps here.

And you'll fall for it.  Just like you always do.


----------



## Edgetho

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you're deluded. What happens when the Government does disarm everyone? Do you think murders will magically disappear? Man, spare me your far fetched utopian fantasies. What stops them from killing you or using guns to oppress you? You overreact too much. You need to change your attitude. In the grand scheme of things, we are insignificant insects in the eyes of this autonomous government body. Your political views won't mean much if you don't have the necessary firepower to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.
> 
> Never, ever, not once.  The day you fight the government, your neighbors will be cheering the govenrment because you were frightening their children.
> 
> Now, for criminals, again, COMPARE the US to the other G-7 advanced industrialized democracies.  Hardly a "Utopian Fantasy".
> 
> Japan bans guns. They only had 11 gun murders last year and less than 600 total murders.
> 
> Japan is a real place.  It really exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japan does not have a minority crime/gang problem. Thier gangs are far more organized and discreet.
> 
> Japan has a huge suicide problem that dwarfs suicides in the US.
> 
> Comparing a monolithic culture such as Japan to a nation of immigrants such as ours is fail on your part.
> 
> Another JoePussy post about being a pussy.
Click to expand...


Japan is a sick culture.  

Some people need to study it first before they hold it up as an example.

And no, I'm not talking about the Shoguns or the WWII Imperialists, I'm talking right now.

They're a fucked up culture.

Think "I'd Rather Eat Chocolate" but ten times worse.  More like a 100 times worse

Coupled with their love of sadism and pedophilia.....  

Just sayin'


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Japan does not have a minority crime/gang problem. Thier gangs are far more organized and discreet.



The Yakuza are vastly more vicious than the street gangs or even the Mafia is.  The thing is, they are "discreet" because they don't have easy access to guns and the police aren't wasting time running in guys who shoot their neighbors so they can concentrate on them. 



martybegan said:


> [
> Japan has a huge suicide problem that dwarfs suicides in the US.



Number of sucides in Japan-  23,502.
Number of suicides in US-       38,285

Now, true their rate his higher- 18/100K to our 12/100K, but not by that much.  

Besides, I thought you didn't care about suicide.  





martybegan said:


> [
> Comparing a monolithic culture such as Japan to a nation of immigrants such as ours is fail on your part.



Not seeing how being "immigrants" is an issue.  We're all human beings, capable of violence and cruelty. It's just that the Japanese don't let the apes have guns, so they have a lot less. 




martybegan said:


> [
> Another JoePussy post about being a pussy.



Another Marty Post about how tiny his penis is and how scared of the Negroes he is. 

Oooh, get yourself a gun, there's a scary negro in the White House.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "liberal" about authoritarianism.  They're polar opposites.
> 
> I didn't "chastize" you -- I corrected you.  When I chastize you, you'll know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "know the difference."  I do, but again, calling people liberal who call themselves liberal isn't not knowing the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I missed your examples thereof, but then I just got here.
> In any case, continuing a fallacious definition when you know it to be fallacious isn't exactly the smartest plan, is it?
Click to expand...


Then again, using terms that no one knows what you're talking about during discussions seems like a dubious solution.  And constantly defining them so they know what you mean every time you make a point would be tiresome.  I'm a libertarian, but saying I'm a liberal constantly because I'm a true liberal and the ones who aren't but call themselves that just won't get what I'm saying.  In the end, writing is about communications.  Communicating accurately with the knowledge it won't be understood is still poor communications.  I call the right conservatives in discussions even though I don't consider most of them true conservatives either.  Jumping into everyone's business and government owning our bodies isn't what I consider conservative anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> Japan is a sick culture.
> 
> Some people need to study it first before they hold it up as an example.
> 
> And no, I'm not talking about the Shoguns or the WWII Imperialists, I'm talking right now.
> 
> They're a fucked up culture.
> 
> Think "I'd Rather Eat Chocolate" but ten times worse.  More like a 100 times worse
> 
> Coupled with their love of sadism and pedophilia.....
> 
> Just sayin'



Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell. 

And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Brain357 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could just print one.
> 
> Plastic Guns - How Soon Until Criminals Use Them? - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it'll be very funny when the blow up in the faces of crooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very expensive too.
Click to expand...


yeah like an ar-15 is *not very expensive now *

--LOL


----------



## Nosmo King

kaz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.
> 
> Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.
> 
> In short, make guns less lethal.
> 
> In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.
> 
> Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.
> 
> We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
Click to expand...

Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.  

And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Japan is a sick culture.
> 
> Some people need to study it first before they hold it up as an example.
> 
> And no, I'm not talking about the Shoguns or the WWII Imperialists, I'm talking right now.
> 
> They're a fucked up culture.
> 
> Think "I'd Rather Eat Chocolate" but ten times worse.  More like a 100 times worse
> 
> Coupled with their love of sadism and pedophilia.....
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.
> 
> And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.
Click to expand...


Then move there, bitch.


----------



## Edgetho

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.
> 
> Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.
> 
> In short, make guns less lethal.
> 
> In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.
> 
> Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.
> 
> We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
Click to expand...


Uhhh, genius...

Pot is a perishable commodity.

Guns are not.  There's already enough here to arm 10 Revolutions.


----------



## martybegan

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the sale, manufacture, importation, distribution and transportation of any and all guns fitted with a semi-automatic firing system and is capable of holding a magazine or clip.
> 
> Only shot guns, bolt action rifles and revolvers.
> 
> In short, make guns less lethal.
> 
> In time, the stock of weapons other than those described will dry up due to misuse and abuse and lack of repair parts.  Unless you think gang bangers will employ hordes of gunsmiths.  But I doubt that.  The only reason they use semi-automatic weapons is their lack of marksmanship.  They need multiple rounds fired in rapid order to first hit their intended target and have enough time to flee the scene.
> 
> Hunters, target shooters and those concerned with self defense would be satisfied to hole the same type of weapons which served those purposes for decades.  The gun makers created a monster when they flooded our streets with cheap rapid fire weapons.  Blame them.
> 
> We know that there will always be those intent on inflicting gun violence on society.  The assault weapon with its rapid fire and high capacity magazine has put the 'mass' into "mass shooting".  Sportsmen have used shot guns and bolt action rifles for decades.  Then suddenly they "need" rapid fire?  Really?  Have game animals developed some kind of bullet resistance, or has the lust for the sexy gun made the "need" for rapid fire the flavor of the month?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Flying in something as bulky as pot *makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
Click to expand...


Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.


----------



## Edgetho

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> 
> 
> *Flying in something as bulky as pot *makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
Click to expand...


Well.....  Not so sure about your figures but...

Why bother with all that?  Just buy it from the illegals back-packing it in from Mexico.

If they get caught, all the gubmint does is deport them.

If YOU get caught, it's bye-bye for twenty years.

Or start a grow-house.  Just be careful to watch your electric bills.  Big time tip off to the Law.


----------



## JoeB131

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Japan is a sick culture.
> 
> Some people need to study it first before they hold it up as an example.
> 
> And no, I'm not talking about the Shoguns or the WWII Imperialists, I'm talking right now.
> 
> They're a fucked up culture.
> 
> Think "I'd Rather Eat Chocolate" but ten times worse.  More like a 100 times worse
> 
> Coupled with their love of sadism and pedophilia.....
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.
> 
> And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then move there, bitch.
Click to expand...


Why? 

Frankly, I want to fix this country. 

The way to do that is to slap down the religous nuts, the gun nuts and the greedy assholes pulling your strings.


----------



## martybegan

Edgetho said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Flying in something as bulky as pot *makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.....  Not so sure about your figures but...
> 
> Why bother with all that?  Just buy it from the illegals back-packing it in from Mexico.
> 
> If they get caught, all the gubmint does is deport them.
> 
> If YOU get caught, it's bye-bye for twenty years.
> 
> Or start a grow-house.  Just be careful to watch your electric bills.  Big time tip off to the Law.
Click to expand...


The point is that if something has value it will be brought in, no matter how illegal it is. 

So even if you ban all guns and somehow magically get rid of all the ones outside of government control, criminals will still want them (and some formerly law abiding people as well) and will pay top dollar for them. Instead of drug planes you will have gun planes.

This also doesnt include the homegrown industries that will spring up overnight to machine new guns and ammo.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Japan is a sick culture.
> 
> Some people need to study it first before they hold it up as an example.
> 
> And no, I'm not talking about the Shoguns or the WWII Imperialists, I'm talking right now.
> 
> They're a fucked up culture.
> 
> Think "I'd Rather Eat Chocolate" but ten times worse.  More like a 100 times worse
> 
> Coupled with their love of sadism and pedophilia.....
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.
> 
> And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.
Click to expand...


No, they are just under-reproducing themselves into extinction.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you'll never have enough firepower to stop the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you an agent of the Government? There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. We only have a military of about 1.5 million men and women. You do the math, wiseass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> There are 80 million gun owners, most of who don't know what the fuck they are doing and have no business owning a gun to start with.
> 
> But you see, that's the problem.  We have a gun industry that really thinks that a "Well-Regulated Militia" is Nancy Lanza prepping for the Zombie Apocolypse and taking her crazy son to the shooting range.
Click to expand...


Guns kill people, not zombies.


----------



## jon_berzerk

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> 
> 
> *Flying in something as bulky as pot *makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
Click to expand...


i dont know if they still do but back in the day 

they used to  find cessnas in the desert that took one way trips across the border 

hauling weed and such


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.
> 
> And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then move there, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Frankly, I want to fix this country.
> 
> The way to do that is to slap down the religous nuts, the gun nuts and the greedy assholes pulling your strings.
Click to expand...


I'd prefer you go fix Japan.

In fact, I bet I could get contributions for your Air Fare from most of the members of the Board if you denounced your American Citizenship and moved there.

You hate America anyway.  Just move, bitch.

Your ancestors did.

Or were they shipped here in the hold of a cargo ship as criminals in chains in the 17th/18th Century?

Likely.

Or maybe they were fighting other hapless DPs trying to board a ship in some God-Forsaken harbor around the turn of the 20th Century.  You know, running from some FUCKED up place in Europe.....  The other place you like to compare us to and tell us how inferior we are to them.

Just fucking leave.


----------



## Edgetho

martybegan said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....  Not so sure about your figures but...
> 
> Why bother with all that?  Just buy it from the illegals back-packing it in from Mexico.
> 
> If they get caught, all the gubmint does is deport them.
> 
> If YOU get caught, it's bye-bye for twenty years.
> 
> Or start a grow-house.  Just be careful to watch your electric bills.  Big time tip off to the Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that if something has value it will be brought in, no matter how illegal it is.
> 
> So even if you ban all guns and somehow magically get rid of all the ones outside of government control, criminals will still want them (and some formerly law abiding people as well) and will pay top dollar for them. Instead of drug planes you will have gun planes.
> 
> This also doesnt include the homegrown industries that will spring up overnight to machine new guns and ammo.
Click to expand...


The worst mass-murders in American History didn't involve guns.

If people want to commit murder on a mass scale, they can and there is nothing you can do about it.

I can go into your Home, look under your Kitchen sink and find the ingredients to murder people with.

If I wanted to....  Which I don't.

Guns are just a weapon of opportunity.

dimocraps don't want a debate on this, they want confiscation.

Learn it, remember it....  NEVER trust a dimocrap.

never


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ford were found to specifically be marketting their cars to the drunk driving community, ummmm, yeah. they should.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what the NRA and the Gun Manufacturers do.   They market to the crazies and the criminal elements SPECIFICALLY so that other people are scared into buying their product.
> 
> Now, I should also point out that Bars ARE held liable if they overserve a patron and he goes out and runs down a bunch of nuns and orphans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a flat out lie. Show me advertising targeted at people with mental health issues or people that have a history of violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And you know this is targeted specifically at people with mental issues and/or a documented history of violence how exactly? That isn't advertising from a manufaturer. Someone just photoshpped it together. A company that sells guns is going to forget to put on their advertising who makes the gun pictured? Where did this 'advertising' appear?

Seeing as this probably photoshopped and I imagine you know that, makes you look pretty pathetic.


----------



## Brain357

jon_berzerk said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it'll be very funny when the blow up in the faces of crooks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very expensive too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah like an ar-15 is *not very expensive now *
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


Do you know how much those printers cost?


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Are you serious? You want Dumbcorats to have a plan?    

The Dumbocrats haven't had an idea since they first formed in the late 1800's with the "idea": LET'S HAVE GOVERNMENT CONTROL IT!

That's been their *ONLY* "idea" in their 100+ years of existence...


----------



## P@triot

*"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem" 

- Joe Rogan*


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society has long taxed behavior it sees as damaging and encouraged behavior it sees as beneficial.
> 
> Sorry you disagree with what I perceive as one or the other.  I tend to think of body counts in the thousands as bad things and you do not...but there is NO danger of anything I'm proposing getting passed in this day and age.
> 
> Relax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary. It is YOU who does not think about the body counts. Outlawing guns is not the logical response of someone who is concerned with that. The logical response would be to look at the root causes of violence, not focus solely on the object with which violence is carried out. You would also to a better job of priortizing these things that supposedly cause death. Guns are pretty low on the list of inanimate objects involved in injury and death in the U.S. Cars are significantly above guns in that respect. Why is it you are not motivated to ban those. To use your own words and simply changing a noun; The harder you make it to own a car, the fewer of them there will be and less death and injury as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, lets ban cars too.  Oh wait, the TT&L is unconstitutional since it prevents poor people from buying them.
> 
> This is how goofy the argument has gotten in the "defense" of life-robbing weapons.
> 
> Cars, at least in most states, have to have liability insurance which, at least holds the drivers somewhat financially responsible for their WMDs.  Will you agree that there should be the same stipulation for gun owners and their WMDs then--if you're going to hold on to this analogy?
Click to expand...


There's nothing goofy about it. Guns are inanimate objects. Cars are inanimate objects. In the case of both if used by a person irresponsibly or malicioulsy they can and are involved in injury and death. The differences are their physical forms. My analogy needs know further defense. Yours does given the similarities between the two objects. 

Your end goal is no more guns, believing the fewer of them there are the less death and injury the can cause. To do so you have proposed extreme measures such as heay taxation and regulation and attach negative stigma to gun owners. For your argurment to have validity it requires you apply the same standards to other objects that have the capacity to be involved in signigicant injury and death. Like cars which are involved in more injuries and death. What I'm trying to do here is show you how irrational your perception of guns is. You see them as devices that cause only injury and death. Yet you don't see other objects that cause even more injury and death the same way. You aren't proposing heavy taxation of cars or that a negative stigma be attached to people that own them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Bern80 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation.  How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?
Click to expand...


See my remark to Marty, above.   I'm not "fucked up in the head" nor is my desire to see a rational gun policy fucked up.  A car is made to transport, not to kill.  A gun is made to kill.  Yes, some guns are collectables and some are used for recreation but all were made for one purpose - to kill.  Some cars are used to kill intentionally, but too few to be noteworthy.

In the four points I posted no where is it suggested all guns should be outlawed, but some human beings must be prevented from ever owning, possessing and having in their custody and contol a gun.  And 'gun runners' who might povide a gun to someone unfit, i.e. unlicensed, are as dangerous to innocent citizens as any dealer of dangerous drugs.


----------



## Nosmo King

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> 
> 
> *Flying in something as bulky as pot *makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
Click to expand...

You're chasing this:







While ignoring this:


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation.  How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my remark to Marty, above.   I'm not "fucked up in the head" nor is my desire to see a rational gun policy fucked up.  A car is made to transport, not to kill.  A gun is made to kill.  Yes, some guns are collectables and some are used for recreation but all were made for one purpose - to kill.  Some cars are used to kill intentionally, but too few to be noteworthy.
> 
> In the four points I posted no where is it suggested all guns should be outlawed, but some human beings must be prevented from ever owning, possessing and having in their custody and contol a gun.  And 'gun runners' who might povide a gun to someone unfit, i.e. unlicensed, are as dangerous to innocent citizens as any dealer of dangerous drugs.
Click to expand...


First, everyone agrees 100% with you that some people should never own a firearm. But those people have been addressed by law already (a felon, a person with mental health issues, and people guilty of domestic violence have all been banned from possessing firearms).

Second, would you guys please stop with the absurd "an automobile was not designed to kill somebody" narrative? More people are dying from automobiles than they ever have from guns. Who cares what the "intent" was at the time of manufacturing?!? A life lost is a life lost. When you talk about the intent behind the manufacturing, you prove it's not about human life and the you could care less that people are dying.


----------



## martybegan

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Flying in something as bulky as pot *makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're chasing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While ignoring this:
Click to expand...


I'm refuting your specific point, which i seem to have done pretty well considering you had to go for snark and shock value.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.
> 
> And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then move there, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Frankly, I want to fix this country.
> 
> The way to do that is to slap down the religous nuts, the gun nuts and the greedy assholes pulling your strings.
Click to expand...


No Joe - you want to BREAK this country and drag it down to the level if the rest of the 3rd world shit-holes like Cuba so you can feel better about yourself.

You've been losing for 58 years Joe. You're never going to win your battle. Either get the fuck out of the U.S. (since it was founded on everything you hate - freedom, prosperity, etc.) or accept being a miserable loser the rest of your life.

We prefer you would move so we don't have to hear you bitch for the rest of your miserable life.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Edgetho said:


> From 'Rolling Stoned'?
> 
> Gimme a fucking break.
> 
> I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.
> 
> Know why?  Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....
> 
> Confiscation.  It's what dimocraps want.
> 
> Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why not?  They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.
> 
> Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit.  They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.
> 
> They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.
> 
> But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.
> 
> ALL of them.  ALL.
> 
> And the honest ones......  My bad, there are no honest ones.
> 
> We're talking dimocraps here.
> 
> And you'll fall for it.  Just like you always do.



You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity.  I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns.  I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you.  Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?


----------



## P@triot

Edgetho said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> 
> 
> Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
> 
> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhhh, genius...
> 
> Pot is a perishable commodity.
> 
> Guns are not.  There's already enough here to arm 10 Revolutions.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 'Rolling Stoned'?
> 
> Gimme a fucking break.
> 
> I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.
> 
> Know why?  Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....
> 
> Confiscation.  It's what dimocraps want.
> 
> Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why not?  They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.
> 
> Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit.  They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.
> 
> They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.
> 
> But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.
> 
> ALL of them.  ALL.
> 
> And the honest ones......  My bad, there are no honest ones.
> 
> We're talking dimocraps here.
> 
> And you'll fall for it.  Just like you always do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity.  I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns.  I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you.  Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?
Click to expand...


Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?

Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?


----------



## Nosmo King

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot sells for $1000-1500 per pound. So assume even a little cessna with one pilot carry 500 lbs, that equates to minimum of $500,000 for one flight. Now we are not even talking coke or heroin, which are far more expense, and thus far more profitable.
> 
> 
> 
> You're chasing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While ignoring this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm refuting your specific point, which i seem to have done pretty well considering you had to go for snark and shock value.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to snuff out yet another gun lover's delight: the red herring.  But you seem to fall for it hook, line and sinker, to borrow an apt cliché.  If you bother to read the posts preceding this, perhaps you will understand, but perhaps not.


----------



## martybegan

Nosmo King said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're chasing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While ignoring this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm refuting your specific point, which i seem to have done pretty well considering you had to go for snark and shock value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been trying to snuff out yet another gun lover's delight: the red herring.  But you seem to fall for it hook, line and sinker, to borrow an apt cliché.  If you bother to read the posts preceding this, perhaps you will understand, but perhaps not.
Click to expand...


Still dodging your specific point made, and how I effectively debunked it. 

And we all know whats in the rest of this post, more gun grabbing liberal bullshit, some of it being piled up by yourself. 

Again, nice attempt at shock value, but it just shows your argument is weak and based on emotion. 

You also dont understand the concept of a red herring argument evidently.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rottweiler said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> From 'Rolling Stoned'?
> 
> Gimme a fucking break.
> 
> I stayed out of this thread for 455 posts.
> 
> Know why?  Because the answer to the OPs question is really simple.....
> 
> Confiscation.  It's what dimocraps want.
> 
> Since they know they can't get away with that, they'll slowly and incrementally strangle your gun rights until you're as comfortable as the proverbial.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why not?  They been getting away with it for the past 100+ years.
> 
> Oh, they'll play the "I'm truly concerned" bit.  They'll do their best to convince you that all they really want is 'common sense' gun control.
> 
> They'll do everything they can to make you think they're being reasonable while publicly disagreeing with their far-left brethren who are telling you the truth about what the dimocraps want.
> 
> But, in the end, confiscation is what dimocraps want.
> 
> ALL of them.  ALL.
> 
> And the honest ones......  My bad, there are no honest ones.
> 
> We're talking dimocraps here.
> 
> And you'll fall for it.  Just like you always do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity.  I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns.  I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you.  Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?
> 
> Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?
Click to expand...


There is no panacea to cure all ills.  What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation.  In response to your points:  

1.  The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.

2.  Of course the war on drugs is a failure.  Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns).  All need to be controlled.  For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market.  MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco.  Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rottweiler said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my remark to Marty, above.   I'm not "fucked up in the head" nor is my desire to see a rational gun policy fucked up.  A car is made to transport, not to kill.  A gun is made to kill.  Yes, some guns are collectables and some are used for recreation but all were made for one purpose - to kill.  Some cars are used to kill intentionally, but too few to be noteworthy.
> 
> In the four points I posted no where is it suggested all guns should be outlawed, but some human beings must be prevented from ever owning, possessing and having in their custody and contol a gun.  And 'gun runners' who might povide a gun to someone unfit, i.e. unlicensed, are as dangerous to innocent citizens as any dealer of dangerous drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, everyone agrees 100% with you that some people should never own a firearm. But those people have been addressed by law already (a felon, a person with mental health issues, and people guilty of domestic violence have all been banned from possessing firearms).
> 
> Second, would you guys please stop with the absurd "an automobile was not designed to kill somebody" narrative? More people are dying from automobiles than they ever have from guns. Who cares what the "intent" was at the time of manufacturing?!? A life lost is a life lost. When you talk about the intent behind the manufacturing, you prove it's not about human life and the you could care less that people are dying.
Click to expand...


Drivers are licensed and anyone cited who drove with a suspended or revoked license (in CA) is guilty of a misdemeanor and earns a mandatory jail sentence.  Does it prevent all such drivers from getting behind the wheel?  Nope, but those that get a second or subsequent generally get six months county time and on one occasion I saw someone with three new citations for 14601 CVC sentenced to six months on each count to be served consecutively and placed on three years supervised probation.

Cars too are made safer each year, generally due to government regulations.  Government regulates the legal speed limit and  other the rules of the road which have reduced death and injury - seat belts and air bags as the most obvious.  Can you imagine a "hot rod" equivalent of a fully automatic AK 47 being street legal"?


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.
> 
> Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.
> 
> Violations are for the courts to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what about answering my question this time?
> 
> Suppose we put a stiff tax on abortion.  Is that Constitutional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think it would be...yes.
> 
> However, one is a retail sale and another is a medical procedure; not sure how you'd go about taxing some medical procedures more than others but; okay.  If you don't buy a gun, you go home and get upset.  If you can't get your fetus aborted, the lives of 2 human beings are irrevocably changed...  It's a bit of a false analogy.
Click to expand...


At least you're consistent on the "yes."  Though your follow on paragraph is bizarre.  The point was whether or not our Constitutional rights can be sold to us by the government.  I say no, you say yes.  What that has to do with retail versus medical I don't know for this question, but again at least you were consistent that you believe government can sell us our Constitutional rights.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal but I have a plan.
> 
> My plan is less criminals.
> 
> A:  Teach kids to be responsible in school vs. the current plan of teaching them to be liberals.
> B:  Eliminate all criminal activities of the government.  Such as the redistribution of wealth schemes. These redistribution schemes make people of the left believe they are entitled to things they have not earned.
> C: End the war on Drugs.  Duh.
> D: End government managed welfare.
> E:  Prosecute vagrancy as a felonious act.  No job, no family, no assets, no ward?  Fine you get to go on the chain gang.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot begin to tell you how absurd you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way to preserve the 2nd Amendment is to do away with all of the lesser amendments like free speech, right to LL&H...flimsy ones.
Click to expand...




What does that have to do with anything regarding these posts?


----------



## kaz

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now suppose you address the part about why kids at any high school can get pot and this is going to work?
> 
> So when planes with drugs fly in from Columbia, think guns could come in the same way?  Say even on the same planes?
> 
> 
> 
> Flying in something as bulky as pot makes no sense when one considers that most of that pot isn't imported, but domestically grown.
Click to expand...


What a non-post.  Coke and other drugs are also flown and shipped in and carried across the border.  People travel illegally from Mexico constantly and the left is working to keep that flow going.  So...



Nosmo King said:


> And what a new twist on the old red herrings that most gun lovers throw out there!  Pot!



...what about taking your hand out of your pants and addressing the question?  If it's that easy to refute, refute it with content.


----------



## kaz

Nosmo King said:


> You're chasing this:
> 
> ...
> 
> While ignoring this:
> 
> ...



Begging the question.  The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.

However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it?  Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay.  The plan of the Leftists in this country.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The efforts to comport guns with drugs or cars is absurd and desperate.  Cars kill and so do drugs and guns.  Yet the former are controlled and the latter is not.  What if there were no controls on guns whatsoever?

If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms".

Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restriction, at least those who are sane.  The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.


----------



## Nosmo King

kaz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're chasing this:
> 
> ...
> 
> While ignoring this:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question.  The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.
> 
> However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it?  Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay.  The plan of the Leftists in this country.
Click to expand...

Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence.  That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.


----------



## Spoonman

Wry Catcher said:


> The efforts to comport guns with drugs or cars is absurd and desperate.  Cars kill and so do drugs and guns.  Yet the former are controlled and the latter is not.  What if there were no controls on guns whatsoever?
> 
> If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms".
> 
> Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restriction, at least those who are sane.  The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.



how are cars controlled?  do you need a background check to get one?  Drugs are controlled? so you are saying our controls have eleiminated or even minimized deaths from them.  we don't have a drug problem?


----------



## kaz

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're chasing this:
> 
> ...
> 
> While ignoring this:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question.  The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.
> 
> However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it?  Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay.  The plan of the Leftists in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence.  That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.
Click to expand...


So let's call your guy with the bullet hole the first victim in Washington.  The other 11 dead people to you are "red herrings."  Got it.  I don't think their families think that.


----------



## Bern80

Wry Catcher said:


> The efforts to comport guns with drugs or cars is absurd and desperate.  Cars kill and so do drugs and guns.  Yet the former are controlled and the latter is not.  What if there were no controls on guns whatsoever?
> 
> If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms".
> 
> Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restriction, at least those who are sane.  The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.



It depends on the argument. You, I don't think, are calling for the outright ban of guns. Some people on here, like CandyCorn, are.

Comparing how the two are regulated, I actually would not have a problem if guns were regulated similarily to cars.


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For gunmakers, the political fight over assault rifles and high-capacity pistols is about more than just profits  it's about the militarization of the marketplace and represents a desperate bid by gunmakers to prop up a decaying business. The once-dependable market for traditional hunting guns has fallen off a cliff. To adapt, the firearms industry has embraced a business strategy that requires it to place the weapons of war favored by deranged killers like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner into the homes and holsters of as many Americans as possible. "They're not selling your dad's hunting rifle or shotgun," says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a top industry watchdog. "They're selling military-bred weaponry."
> 
> As recently as 2008, shotguns, rifles and other traditional hunting weapons made up half of all new civilian gun sales in America, according to SEC documents  a brisk billion-dollar business. Today, hunting guns account for less than a quarter of the market, and the hunting industry is forecasting a 24 percent drop in revenue by 2025. Gunmakers are on the wrong side of the same demographic curves that haunt the modern Republican Party. Its customer base is too old, too white, too male and too Southern. According to Gallup, 61 percent of white males in the South own guns today. Nationwide, just 18 percent of Latinos do. "The white males are aging and dying off," says Sugarmann. Flooding the market with battle-ready guns, he says, "is an effort to find one new, shiny thing to sell them."*
Click to expand...


Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.


----------



## Nosmo King

kaz said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question.  The point of the discussion is HOW we reduce gun violence, you're just assuming the truth of your own position.
> 
> However, the one dead in your picture is emblematic of your plan to make sure the murderer has the option of keeping blowing more people away, doesn't it?  Maximize the gore, use it for pathetic political hay.  The plan of the Leftists in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence.  That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's call your guy with the bullet hole the first victim in Washington.  The other 11 dead people to you are "red herrings."  Got it.  I don't think their families think that.
Click to expand...

As usual, you haven't "got it".  The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.

Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done.  that's ridiculous.


----------



## rightwinger

My plan is quite simple

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not


----------



## Wry Catcher

Spoonman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The efforts to comport guns with drugs or cars is absurd and desperate.  Cars kill and so do drugs and guns.  Yet the former are controlled and the latter is not.  What if there were no controls on guns whatsoever?
> 
> If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms".
> 
> Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restriction, at least those who are sane.  The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how are cars controlled?  do you need a background check to get one?  Drugs are controlled? so you are saying our controls have eleiminated or even minimized deaths from them.  we don't have a drug problem?
Click to expand...


How are cars controlled?  Well, let's start with lights, seat belts and air bags - all regulated by the government to make the product safer (and in effect an infringement on the rights of auto producers).  To operate a car one needs a license and most need to buy insurance if they own a car.  The license requires one to understand the rules of the road, have acceptable vision and operate the vehicle safely or lose their license to operate a motor vehicle.


----------



## earlycuyler

rightwinger said:


> My plan is quite simple
> 
> Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not



Kind of they do. I remember my first purchase. It was in Placer County CA, and we had to wait 3 days for the check to come back. Nopthing wrong with that. I was even able to shoot it while I waited.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> My plan is quite simple
> 
> Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not



Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what about answering my question this time?
> 
> Suppose we put a stiff tax on abortion.  Is that Constitutional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think it would be...yes.
> 
> However, one is a retail sale and another is a medical procedure; not sure how you'd go about taxing some medical procedures more than others but; okay.  If you don't buy a gun, you go home and get upset.  If you can't get your fetus aborted, the lives of 2 human beings are irrevocably changed...  It's a bit of a false analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you're consistent on the "yes."  Though your follow on paragraph is bizarre.  The point was whether or not our Constitutional rights can be sold to us by the government.  I say no, you say yes.  What that has to do with retail versus medical I don't know for this question, but again at least you were consistent that you believe government can sell us our Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...


One is a matter of health and one is a matter of vanity; I would imagine that taxes on heart surgeries would be of more grave concern than taxes on weapons you want to purchase.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary. It is YOU who does not think about the body counts. Outlawing guns is not the logical response of someone who is concerned with that. The logical response would be to look at the root causes of violence, not focus solely on the object with which violence is carried out. You would also to a better job of priortizing these things that supposedly cause death. Guns are pretty low on the list of inanimate objects involved in injury and death in the U.S. Cars are significantly above guns in that respect. Why is it you are not motivated to ban those. To use your own words and simply changing a noun; The harder you make it to own a car, the fewer of them there will be and less death and injury as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great, lets ban cars too.  Oh wait, the TT&L is unconstitutional since it prevents poor people from buying them.
> 
> This is how goofy the argument has gotten in the "defense" of life-robbing weapons.
> 
> Cars, at least in most states, have to have liability insurance which, at least holds the drivers somewhat financially responsible for their WMDs.  Will you agree that there should be the same stipulation for gun owners and their WMDs then--if you're going to hold on to this analogy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing goofy about it. Guns are inanimate objects. Cars are inanimate objects. In the case of both if used by a person irresponsibly or malicioulsy they can and are involved in injury and death. The differences are their physical forms. My analogy needs know further defense. Yours does given the similarities between the two objects.
Click to expand...


If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property. 

Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?  

Afterall, they're the same thing...right?


----------



## kaz

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence.  That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's call your guy with the bullet hole the first victim in Washington.  The other 11 dead people to you are "red herrings."  Got it.  I don't think their families think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you haven't "got it".  The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not a "red herring" it's an excellent point.  Unenforceable laws just train the population to not respect government or the law.  If you can't enforce it, don't pass it.  Drugs and guns both fit that category.  By passing laws against them and not enforcing them, our drug laws are just funding organized crime.  You're trying to do the same with guns.  And the cost of the gun laws is that law abiding citizens DO follow them, and then they can't defend themselves when the people who don't follow them start shooting.  Clearly you are treating the victims in Washington as red herrings to your lame arguments.



Nosmo King said:


> Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done.  that's ridiculous.



Now this is a red herring.  Or better yet a strawman.  No one thinks that.  It's just typical liberal demagoguery because your positions are illogical and can't be defended with reason, so you demonize your opponents and their positions.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, lets ban cars too.  Oh wait, the TT&L is unconstitutional since it prevents poor people from buying them.
> 
> This is how goofy the argument has gotten in the "defense" of life-robbing weapons.
> 
> Cars, at least in most states, have to have liability insurance which, at least holds the drivers somewhat financially responsible for their WMDs.  Will you agree that there should be the same stipulation for gun owners and their WMDs then--if you're going to hold on to this analogy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing goofy about it. Guns are inanimate objects. Cars are inanimate objects. In the case of both if used by a person irresponsibly or malicioulsy they can and are involved in injury and death. The differences are their physical forms. My analogy needs know further defense. Yours does given the similarities between the two objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property.
> 
> Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?
> 
> Afterall, they're the same thing...right?
Click to expand...


In the sense that the offending party should take responsibility, yes. Though insurance on firearms is unneccessary since, under the law, one is already going to be punished, in most cases, if they hurt someone with their firearm. 

Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think it would be...yes.
> 
> However, one is a retail sale and another is a medical procedure; not sure how you'd go about taxing some medical procedures more than others but; okay.  If you don't buy a gun, you go home and get upset.  If you can't get your fetus aborted, the lives of 2 human beings are irrevocably changed...  It's a bit of a false analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you're consistent on the "yes."  Though your follow on paragraph is bizarre.  The point was whether or not our Constitutional rights can be sold to us by the government.  I say no, you say yes.  What that has to do with retail versus medical I don't know for this question, but again at least you were consistent that you believe government can sell us our Constitutional rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One is a matter of health and one is a matter of vanity; I would imagine that taxes on heart surgeries would be of more grave concern than taxes on weapons you want to purchase.
Click to expand...


As far as a debate in congress, those are arguments that could be made.  This discussion is regarding Constitutional Rights though.  Which is why I'm saying it doesn't make sense in _this_ discussion.  I'm not saying that they wouldn't make sense in any discussion.

It is bizarre though the idea that voting, which is not a Constitutional right, is protected from taxation (aka a poll tax).  If you allow someone to vote, you can't charge them for it. 

Yet the left, who argue that a free ID is still a tax and is Unconstitutional argues that actual Constitutional rights like gun ownership can be regulated and even punitive taxes applied.

Liberals are authoritarian, they aren't liberal.  Which is the only way that makes sense.


----------



## rightwinger

Bern80 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan is quite simple
> 
> Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.
Click to expand...


You know, I'd like to see gun shops being able to do that

In many of our recent massacres, the guy is obviously fruit loops. I'd like to see a gun shop say.....Sorry nutjob, you are not buying a gun from me

Bartenders do it when they refuse a drunk a drink. Why can't gun shops?


----------



## Spoonman

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan is quite simple
> 
> Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I'd like to see gun shops being able to do that
> 
> In many of our recent massacres, the guy is obviously fruit loops. I'd like to see a gun shop say.....Sorry nutjob, you are not buying a gun from me
> 
> Bartenders do it when they refuse a drunk a drink. Why can't gun shops?
Click to expand...


gun shops are supposed to rely on the efforts of the "experts" the government tells them to consult before making a sale. they aren't free to make their own interpretations thanks to liberal laws and liberal lawsuits.  remember, according to you libs, you can't deny to sell or provide a service to anyone.  it's discrimination.  the first gay guy who doesn't get his gun will be suing for discrimination.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberal Plan: make the criminals police officers


----------



## Immanuel

Nosmo King said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes a bit of reality needs to be injected into the argument against gun violence.  That argument has a habit of being bogged down in the academic rationalizations and the occasional red herring proffered by those who would rather simply refer to their own sterling experiences with guns while they ignore the tragic experiences we need to reduce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's call your guy with the bullet hole the first victim in Washington.  The other 11 dead people to you are "red herrings."  Got it.  I don't think their families think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you haven't "got it".  The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.
> 
> Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done.  that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


That is bull shit. The argument has not been that no gun laws are necessary, but rather that additional laws are meaningless AND that you on the left really do not care about stopping gun violence but rather preventing law abiding citizens from owning any guns at all which won't stop gun violence at all and quite possibly will increase violence.

Immie


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> *"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem"
> 
> - Joe Rogan*



Let's give everyone healthcare and include lots of mental healthcare.


----------



## Spoonman

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem"
> 
> - Joe Rogan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's give everyone healthcare and include lots of mental healthcare.
Click to expand...


hey, with obamacare we are doing that.  so now there is no longer an excuse not to let people have guns


----------



## rightwinger

NRA Doctrine
- No Gun Registrations
- No Owner Registrations
- No Background checks
- No restrictions on guns or magazines


NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence


----------



## Steven_R

We've implemented all of those things, some at the federal and some at the state and local levels, and yet gun violence still exists. How does adding more laws that already aren't working fix the problem?


----------



## Spoonman

rightwinger said:


> NRA Doctrine
> - No Gun Registrations
> - No Owner Registrations
> - No Background checks
> - No restrictions on guns or magazines
> 
> 
> NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence



Hmmm, sounds a lot like the 2nd amendment.  how can they go wrong with that


----------



## Spoonman

Steven_R said:


> We've implemented all of those things, some at the federal and some at the state and local levels, and yet gun violence still exists. How does adding more laws that already aren't working fix the problem?



and it seems to exist most heavily in the areas that have implemented them most heavily.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Steven_R said:


> We've implemented all of those things, some at the federal and some at the state and local levels, and yet gun violence still exists. How does adding more laws that already aren't working fix the problem?



I don't hold to the idea that no solution exists, I agree there is no panacea and we will always experience - hopefully vicariously - gun violence and the murder of innocent men, women and children.  But it is reasonable to expect the deaths of innocents can be reduced and the carnage mitigated  by the use of the rule of law.

If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms" at all times.

Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restrictions are necessary, at least those who are sane. The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people. 

As I noted before, the Second Amendment as interpreted by the USSC has become obsolete.  Sadly and to our nations shame it will take more than the murder of twenty 6 and 7 year old children to restore some semblance of sanity and civility in our country.


----------



## Bern80

rightwinger said:


> NRA Doctrine
> - No Gun Registrations
> - No Owner Registrations
> - No Background checks
> - No restrictions on guns or magazines
> 
> 
> NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence



Let's get real for a moment. Yes, some of those things would cut down on gun violence. Just like banning guns altogether would obviously reduce gun violence. Does it make those measures the right thing to do? No. You can even forget about having a second ammendment right to them. On principle, you don't outlaw something entirely that is abused by a small minority. It's entirely impractical.


----------



## kaz

Immanuel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's call your guy with the bullet hole the first victim in Washington.  The other 11 dead people to you are "red herrings."  Got it.  I don't think their families think that.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you haven't "got it".  The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.
> 
> Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done.  that's ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is bull shit. The argument has not been that no gun laws are necessary, but rather that additional laws are meaningless AND that you on the left really do not care about stopping gun violence but rather preventing law abiding citizens from owning any guns at all which won't stop gun violence at all and quite possibly will increase violence.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


We think the people should have access to guns because a free people can defend themselves.  The liberals don't want the people to have guns for the same reason...


----------



## Yurt

rightwinger said:


> NRA Doctrine
> - No Gun Registrations
> - No Owner Registrations
> - No Background checks
> - No restrictions on guns or magazines
> 
> 
> NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence



liar


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan is quite simple
> 
> Anyone wishing to purchase a gun must come and see me first. I can tell within 10 minutes whether you should be allowed to have a gun or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this made me chuckle. You and me both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I'd like to see gun shops being able to do that
> 
> In many of our recent massacres, the guy is obviously fruit loops. I'd like to see a gun shop say.....Sorry nutjob, you are not buying a gun from me
> 
> Bartenders do it when they refuse a drunk a drink. Why can't gun shops?
Click to expand...


And you know that no gun dealers do that because...


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing goofy about it. Guns are inanimate objects. Cars are inanimate objects. In the case of both if used by a person irresponsibly or malicioulsy they can and are involved in injury and death. The differences are their physical forms. My analogy needs know further defense. Yours does given the similarities between the two objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property.
> 
> Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?
> 
> Afterall, they're the same thing...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the sense that the offending party should take responsibility, yes. Though insurance on firearms is unneccessary since, under the law, one is already going to be punished, in most cases, if they hurt someone with their firearm.
Click to expand...

Great; you're in jail.  What about the injured party?  They have to sue you (since you're in jail you're earning is going to go way down).  Liability insurance for guns is paramount it would seem.

Comments?


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.



Cars are designed to transport.
Guns are designed to injure.

Not anywhere close to the same thing.

However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.

As for stigmatizing it; That goes back to the OP.  I was asked for a plan and that is the only way to stop mass murders who use firearms; make guns harder to get.


----------



## Bern80

Wry Catcher said:


> Even the most ardent gun lovers acknowledge some restrictions are necessary, at least those who are sane. The debate should not now or ever be based on the language of the Second, but upon reasonable and rational discussion of what is in the best interest of our nation and its people.



The framers understood the folley of such reasoning. "Well, it's in societies best interest". The road to tyranny is paved with the best intentions. Government based solely on 'what is in societies best intrerest', is nothing more than a benevolent dictatorship.


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> NRA Doctrine
> - No Gun Registrations
> - No Owner Registrations
> - No Background checks
> - No restrictions on guns or magazines
> 
> 
> NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence



Sounds right to me.

Then again, I'm not a moderate like you.  Right RW?  You know, like your party opposes restricting partial birth abortions, requiring parental consent for minors or requiring medical degrees, things like that.  Waiting periods to exercise the "right" to an abortion is ridiculous, but a waiting period for a gun is fine.

There really is nothing the left believes they don't flagrantly contradict with another position.


----------



## candycorn

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem"
> 
> - Joe Rogan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's give everyone healthcare and include lots of mental healthcare.
Click to expand...


Sounds like Obamacare is coming along at just the right time.  

The GOP is constantly taking these positions;  Lets get rid of gun regulations AND do away with healthcare that may identify those who shouldn't have guns....lets force women to have babies AND get rid of any welfare that may help her raise her child.  

Bizarre any way you look at it.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> If the spirit of the Second Amendment were fully accepted, drunks and punks, the mentally ill, drug dealers and rapists, felons and terrorists would all be free to own, possess, and have in their custody and control every manner of "arms" at all times.



And what we have now is they do, and the rest of us don't.  And we want to change that?  Wow, now that I say it out loud, I just realized how nuts what I'm saying is...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you haven't "got it".  The red herring here is the notion proffered by gun lovers that as other things are illegal yet still obtainable, any gun laws will be similarly ineffective, in spite of convictions for the aforementioned crimes.
> 
> Gun lovers seem to think that as nothing can be 100% effective, nothing should be done.  that's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is bull shit. The argument has not been that no gun laws are necessary, but rather that additional laws are meaningless AND that you on the left really do not care about stopping gun violence but rather preventing law abiding citizens from owning any guns at all which won't stop gun violence at all and quite possibly will increase violence.
> 
> Immie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We think the people should have access to guns because a free people can defend themselves.  The liberals don't want the people to have guns for the same reason...
Click to expand...


So you do not support restricting the ability of drunks and punks, rapists and child molesters, the mentally ill and felons, terrorists and drug dealers from owning, possessing and having in their custody and control guns?


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cars are designed to transport.
> Guns are designed to injure.
> 
> Not anywhere close to the same thing.
> 
> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.
> 
> As for stigmatizing it; That goes back to the OP.  I was asked for a plan and that is the only way to stop mass murders who use firearms; make guns harder to get.
Click to expand...


considering cares are made to transport, they kill more people then guns.

only .000036 guns owned by americans ever kills.  if they are made to kill i have to admit they are pretty inefficient at doing that .


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Cars are designed to transport.
> Guns are designed to injure.



Nonsense.  Guns are designed for sports like target practice and hunting and to defend ourselves.   Guns are not designed to injure.  Using a gun to commit a crime is as much a misuse as driving into someone intentionally with your car.


----------



## Spoonman

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is bull shit. The argument has not been that no gun laws are necessary, but rather that additional laws are meaningless AND that you on the left really do not care about stopping gun violence but rather preventing law abiding citizens from owning any guns at all which won't stop gun violence at all and quite possibly will increase violence.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We think the people should have access to guns because a free people can defend themselves.  The liberals don't want the people to have guns for the same reason...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not support restricting the ability of drunks and punks, rapists and child molesters, the mentally ill and felons, terrorists and drug dealers from owning, possessing and having in their custody and control guns?
Click to expand...


why?  will they be raping and molesting the guns?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is bull shit. The argument has not been that no gun laws are necessary, but rather that additional laws are meaningless AND that you on the left really do not care about stopping gun violence but rather preventing law abiding citizens from owning any guns at all which won't stop gun violence at all and quite possibly will increase violence.
> 
> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We think the people should have access to guns because a free people can defend themselves.  The liberals don't want the people to have guns for the same reason...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not support restricting the ability of drunks and punks, rapists and child molesters, the mentally ill and felons, terrorists and drug dealers from owning, possessing and having in their custody and control guns?
Click to expand...


What I am saying is that our laws are not doing that.  They are allowing those people to have guns and preventing honest citizens from having guns.

That point has been stated, like in the freaking OP, and repeated so many times, it's hard to take that you are approaching this debate with any integrity at all.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem"
> 
> - Joe Rogan*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's give everyone healthcare and include lots of mental healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Obamacare is coming along at just the right time.
> 
> The GOP is constantly taking these positions;  Lets get rid of gun regulations AND do away with healthcare that may identify those who shouldn't have guns....lets force women to have babies AND get rid of any welfare that may help her raise her child.
> 
> Bizarre any way you look at it.
Click to expand...


Actually it's an incredibly stupid way to look at it.  Oh, you mean us...


----------



## Steven_R

Spoonman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We think the people should have access to guns because a free people can defend themselves.  The liberals don't want the people to have guns for the same reason...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not support restricting the ability of drunks and punks, rapists and child molesters, the mentally ill and felons, terrorists and drug dealers from owning, possessing and having in their custody and control guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why?  will they be raping and molesting the guns?
Click to expand...


I've fingerfucked many a gun at the gun store I admit...


----------



## MikeK

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.


Every step taken in that direction is a step closer to another major black market.  

Think back to the mid-sixties when the issue was drugs.  Suggestions on "fighting drug abuse" were rampant.  And now that the majority of the suggestions, and more, have been implemented, look where we are.  Any type of drug one is willing to pay for is avalable within five miles of any inhabited location in the U.S. -- if not right around the corner.  

Still we waste billions of dollars each year and have created a massive prison industrial complex doing something which clearly isn't working, has never worked, and there is no reason to believe it ever will work.  Which I've heard is the definition of insanity.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Japanese are Awesome and their women are Sexy as hell.
> 
> And they don't go around murdering each other with glee like we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then move there, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Frankly, I want to fix this country.
> 
> The way to do that is to slap down the religous nuts, the gun nuts and the greedy assholes pulling your strings.
Click to expand...


You'd be doing a lot to fix this country if you did move there.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cars are designed to transport.
> Guns are designed to injure.
> 
> Not anywhere close to the same thing.
Click to expand...


I realize you don't like that harsh truth because it makes you a hypocrite, but that is reality. Nor is your assertion even accurate. Guns are not designed to injur. They are designed to fire bulletts. Certain kinds of bullets are designed to injure. Some are not. The bow and arrow is also designed to injure, yet there is no regulation on those. That is a mute point however, because ultimately their purpose is determined by the user. Their intent doesn't change the numbers of injuries and deaths they are involved in either. And don't you find that interesting? The object you say is not designed to injure or kill, injures and kills more people in the U.S. than the object you claim _is_ designed to injure and kill. They are both inanimate objects that can't hurt anyone without a person acting on them. 



candycorn said:


> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.



There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law. 



candycorn said:


> As for stigmatizing it; That goes back to the OP.  I was asked for a plan and that is the only way to stop mass murders who use firearms; make guns harder to get.



Again bad plain. Very short sighted and very inefficient to think that's the only way to stop mass murders. I would think one solution would be addressing the PEOPLE that commit them rather than the inanimate object they used to carry out their violence. If a crazy person decided to slam their car into a bus full of kids, I gaurantee you would not be focused on the car they drove or more heavily regulating cars. Nor would you insist we start attaching a negative stigma to people that have the audacity to own one. How about something a bit more comparable. Did we go after the the companies who's parts were used in the bomb Timothy McVeigh detonated. Was there even a national discussion about bombs? I don't recall that.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my car wrecks into your car, I'm required to carry liability insurance that will fix your property.
> 
> Shouldn't we do the same thing with weapons--force each one to have liability insurance in case they injure someone?
> 
> Afterall, they're the same thing...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the sense that the offending party should take responsibility, yes. Though insurance on firearms is unneccessary since, under the law, one is already going to be punished, in most cases, if they hurt someone with their firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great; you're in jail.  What about the injured party?  They have to sue you (since you're in jail you're earning is going to go way down).  Liability insurance for guns is paramount it would seem.
> 
> Comments?
Click to expand...


The law already allows you to do that I believe. Without the object being insured.


----------



## Wry Catcher

_1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply._

So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?


----------



## Immanuel

rightwinger said:


> NRA Doctrine
> - No Gun Registrations
> - No Owner Registrations
> - No Background checks
> - No restrictions on guns or magazines
> 
> 
> NRA states: Nothing you propose will stop gun violence



Unfortunately they are probably right.

However, since nothing is going to stop violence, we should be working towards whatever can minimize it to the greatest extent.  

I do not know what that might be.  I tend to side with those who say that armed citizenry deters armed thugs from running rampantly through our cities, but maybe someone can prove differently.  You lefties have some decent examples when you compare the US and the UK.  In some respects, one can look at those comparisons and say, "what gives?".  On the other hand, I tend to look at the scumbags from history and I realize that they to wanted to disarm their citizens so I have to weigh the two things against each other.  Am I more afraid of the criminal with the gun or am I more afraid of what a corrupt government might do if they were not hampered by citizens who could (I am not saying we should revolt or even would be successful if we did) revolt against them?

To be frank, I am a hell of a lot more worried about the criminals on Capital Hill than I am those on the streets.

Immie


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> _1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.
> 
> 2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.
> 
> 4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply._
> 
> So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?



Are these the only laws?  At that point are all the limits on where guns can be taken and concealment and so forth removed?  Or are these the starting point of other restrictions?

If they are the only laws and all others are off the books, then my only real objection is the requirement to buy insurance, which I don't believe is Constitutional.  But since apparently Roberts can find that one in the Constitution, I'm sure you could get it by the robed dictatorship.  You might have to change it to if you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty so he can call it a "tax."


----------



## Bern80

Wry Catcher said:


> _1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.
> 
> 2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.
> 
> 4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply._
> 
> So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?



Nowhere. I know it's tough, but there's kind of two different debates going on here. There's the what level of regulation debate while still allowing people to own guns like you, and there's the those wanting the outright banning and/or elimination of guns altogether like CandyCorn.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> _1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.
> 
> 2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.
> 
> 4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply._
> 
> So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these the only laws?  At that point are all the limits on where guns can be taken and concealment and so forth removed?  Or are these the starting point of other restrictions?
> 
> If they are the only laws and all others are off the books, then my only real objection is the requirement to buy insurance, which I don't believe is Constitutional.  But since apparently Roberts can find that one in the Constitution, I'm sure you could get it by the robed dictatorship.  You might have to change it to if you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty so he can call it a "tax."
Click to expand...


Those 4 pts. might frame a rational approach to people control, arms control is another matter.  The debate on what "arms" include is a long and ponderous one with several schools of thought.  Is it sufficient to suggest each state legislature be allowed to define what types of weapons are prohibited therein?  Would it then be incumbent on each individual to understand the law in states he or she might travel to or through to avoid jeopardy?

I believe all gun owners ought to carry insurance to cover any eventuality.  I carry a one million dollar umbrella policy at a cost of less than $200 per year.  Of course I also have a home owners and auto insurance policy.

In response to Bern:  I doubt many believe guns should be banned from the landscape.  Most gun owners are responsible and most citizens understand that most gun owners are responsible citizens.  That being true, IMO, I also believe most citizens, gun owning and not, would not object to licensing, insurance and the proper transfer of weapons.


----------



## JoeB131

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> I'd prefer you go fix Japan.
> 
> In fact, I bet I could get contributions for your Air Fare from most of the members of the Board if you denounced your American Citizenship and moved there.
> 
> You hate America anyway.  Just move, bitch.



Again, guy, I love America. Served in the Army and everything. 

What I have no use for are inbred, bible thumping, gun toting RETARDS who believe whatever shit the Koch Brothers tell them. 




> Your ancestors did.
> 
> Or were they shipped here in the hold of a cargo ship as criminals in chains in the 17th/18th Century?
> 
> Likely.
> 
> Or maybe they were fighting other hapless DPs trying to board a ship in some God-Forsaken harbor around the turn of the 20th Century.  You know, running from some FUCKED up place in Europe.....  The other place you like to compare us to and tell us how inferior we are to them.
> 
> Just fucking leave.



Well, here's the thing.  The Europeans kept progressing. We started REGRESSING.  

We've really become DUMBER as a society.  As you are kindly proving today.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> _1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.
> 
> 2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.
> 
> 4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply._
> 
> So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are these the only laws?  At that point are all the limits on where guns can be taken and concealment and so forth removed?  Or are these the starting point of other restrictions?
> 
> If they are the only laws and all others are off the books, then my only real objection is the requirement to buy insurance, which I don't believe is Constitutional.  But since apparently Roberts can find that one in the Constitution, I'm sure you could get it by the robed dictatorship.  You might have to change it to if you don't buy insurance, you pay a penalty so he can call it a "tax."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those 4 pts. might frame a rational approach to people control, arms control is another matter.  The debate on what "arms" include is a long and ponderous one with several schools of thought.  Is it sufficient to suggest each state legislature be allowed to define what types of weapons are prohibited therein?  Would it then be incumbent on each individual to understand the law in states he or she might travel to or through to avoid jeopardy?
> 
> I believe all gun owners ought to carry insurance to cover any eventuality.  I carry a one million dollar umbrella policy at a cost of less than $200 per year.  Of course I also have a home owners and auto insurance policy.
> 
> In response to Bern:  I doubt many believe guns should be banned from the landscape.  Most gun owners are responsible and most citizens understand that most gun owners are responsible citizens.  That being true, IMO, I also believe most citizens, gun owning and not, would not object to licensing, insurance and the proper transfer of weapons.
Click to expand...


Most gun owners would most assuredly resist insurance. It is a scam to deny people firearms. All ya gotta do is get the requirement passed then jack the rates up so most can not afford it.

Further not one of those provisions effects illegal guns, does not effect criminals and would not effect the guy that kills someone to gain access to firearms.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For gunmakers, the political fight over assault rifles and high-capacity pistols is about more than just profits  it's about the militarization of the marketplace and represents a desperate bid by gunmakers to prop up a decaying business. The once-dependable market for traditional hunting guns has fallen off a cliff. To adapt, the firearms industry has embraced a business strategy that requires it to place the weapons of war favored by deranged killers like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner into the homes and holsters of as many Americans as possible. "They're not selling your dad's hunting rifle or shotgun," says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a top industry watchdog. "They're selling military-bred weaponry."
> 
> As recently as 2008, shotguns, rifles and other traditional hunting weapons made up half of all new civilian gun sales in America, according to SEC documents  a brisk billion-dollar business. Today, hunting guns account for less than a quarter of the market, and the hunting industry is forecasting a 24 percent drop in revenue by 2025. Gunmakers are on the wrong side of the same demographic curves that haunt the modern Republican Party. Its customer base is too old, too white, too male and too Southern. According to Gallup, 61 percent of white males in the South own guns today. Nationwide, just 18 percent of Latinos do. "The white males are aging and dying off," says Sugarmann. Flooding the market with battle-ready guns, he says, "is an effort to find one new, shiny thing to sell them."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.
Click to expand...


if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem. 

We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
Click to expand...


You can reform the courts and prisons but not gunpowder. It would be a great start though.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

kaz said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I could convince the left to drop gun control I would.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> ^ That's the elephant in the room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...
Click to expand...


*Nope.  No crickets.  It's called Australia and Japan and Germany and Switzerland and Finland and Sweden and the U.K. and every other first world country that has embraced gun control and don't have mass murders.  

And they pity the pointy-headed idiots like yourself.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
Click to expand...


*Most people in lock up are there because of victimless crimes like owning pot or meth, genius.  Not because they shot somebody.*


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gun Industry's Deadly Addiction | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
Click to expand...


Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

MikeK said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> Every step taken in that direction is a step closer to another major black market.
> 
> Think back to the mid-sixties when the issue was drugs.  Suggestions on "fighting drug abuse" were rampant.  And now that the majority of the suggestions, and more, have been implemented, look where we are.  Any type of drug one is willing to pay for is avalable within five miles of any inhabited location in the U.S. -- if not right around the corner.
> 
> Still we waste billions of dollars each year and have created a massive prison industrial complex doing something which clearly isn't working, has never worked, and there is no reason to believe it ever will work.  Which I've heard is the definition of insanity.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, if our economy gets a lot worse and mass homelessness ensues, they have plenty of private prisons ready for the dispossessed. It would only take a week of widespread disorganization and confusion at work around the country.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.
Click to expand...


So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it. 

What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...

If both are such deadly weapons and all...


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
Click to expand...


I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?


----------



## kaz

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I could convince the left to drop gun control I would.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ That's the elephant in the room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nope.  No crickets.  It's called Australia and Japan and Germany and Switzerland and Finland and Sweden and the U.K. and every other first world country that has embraced gun control and don't have mass murders.
> 
> And they pity the pointy-headed idiots like yourself.*
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no freaking idea why gun laws wouldn't work any better than pot laws do.

Liberals have spun, evaded and deflected.  But none of you have posited any sort of actual answer to the question.  You can't of course, because your position is inane.  As I've pointed out, drug smugglers putting drugs on ships, planes, trucks and every other way having no problems getting drugs across the border could and can do the exact same thing with guns.  And if gun restrictions take more hold, the price would go up and they'd be more incented to do it.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
Click to expand...


There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?
Click to expand...


The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed.  So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court.  Allstate took care of both of us.  

No court was involved. 

So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody.  And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.
Click to expand...


The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
Click to expand...


Cars and driving are NOT a right protected by the Constitution. Fire arms are. What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand. It means no punitive tax on firearms and no insurance charges.

Unless of course we need insurance for freedom of worship freedom of speech, or our criminal protections.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not only ridiculous, you're also a liar of mass absurdity.  I'm a registered Democrat and I do not want to see the government confiscate all guns.  I want, however, only licensed, trained and responsible citizens to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> BTW, ALL of your posts taint those who disagree with my opinion appear to be on your side, and thus make them appear to be as mentally disturbed as you.  Who or what made you into the hateful person you have become?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?
> 
> Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no panacea to cure all ills.  What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation.  In response to your points:
> 
> 1.  The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> 2.  Of course the war on drugs is a failure.  Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns).  All need to be controlled.  For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market.  MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco.  Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.
Click to expand...


Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.

That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.

After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.


----------



## Lovebears65

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



How will that stop a criminal from buying a gun on the black market. IT WONT..


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed.  So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court.  Allstate took care of both of us.
> 
> No court was involved.
> 
> So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody.  And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?
Click to expand...


Because in your world, the criminals are going to purchase liability insurance to make sure their victims get their due pay day?!? 

By the way - who in the hell is going to insure criminals?


----------



## Steven_R

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There already is built in responsibility for guns it's just in different forms. In auto accidents it's dealing insurance. In gun accidents it's dealing with the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
Click to expand...


In that case, we should probably go ahead and require insurance for everything. I can hit my neighbor in the head with a brick, and it's coloring books for Christmas for him from now on, and he'll need something to pay the bills because my being in prison for committing a crime just ain't doing it.

Maybe he can get the money when he sues Lowe's for selling me a brick in the first place.


----------



## jon_berzerk

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, your dodging. You conveniently did not quote the second part of what I said which pertains to your actual position; guns need to be eliminated entirely and people who own them should be negatively stigmatized to discourage ownership of firearms. Again, your priorities are horribly misplaced. Cars cause far more injuries and deaths to humans than cars. Yet you seem unwilling to put this same negative stigma on car owners. Why is that? The same policies you advocate could be applied to the automobile, hopefully eliminating the ownership of them eventually and thus eliminating the deaths and injuries they are involved in. Where are your priorities? It seems they are only placed on the ones that don't cause you a personal inconvenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cars are designed to transport.
> Guns are designed to injure.
> 
> Not anywhere close to the same thing.
> 
> However, society has built in responsibility for motorists..insurance.
> Society needs to build in responsibility for gun owners..insurance.
> 
> As for stigmatizing it; That goes back to the OP.  I was asked for a plan and that is the only way to stop mass murders who use firearms; make guns harder to get.
Click to expand...


if anything 

there should be a requirement that those that establish 

a* gun free zone*

should be required to carry insurance


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars and driving are NOT a right protected by the Constitution. Fire arms are. What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand. It means no punitive tax on firearms and no insurance charges.
> 
> Unless of course we need insurance for freedom of worship freedom of speech, or our criminal protections.
Click to expand...


Yeah which is why the comparison is BS.  Thanks for echoing my point made about 30 pages ago.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry - what happens when exactly what you want comes to fruition and then a criminal breaks into a car and steals a gun?
> 
> Furthermore, drugs are outlawed and have been all through the 1900's, yet they are as rampant as ever. Are you really so naïve as to have no knowledge of that little thing called the "black market"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no panacea to cure all ills.  What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation.  In response to your points:
> 
> 1.  The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> 2.  Of course the war on drugs is a failure.  Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns).  All need to be controlled.  For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market.  MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco.  Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.
> 
> That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.
> 
> After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.
Click to expand...


Fort Hood?


----------



## Steven_R

Soldiers are restricted from carrying gun on post except in very limited circumstances.


----------



## jon_berzerk

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no panacea to cure all ills.  What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation.  In response to your points:
> 
> 1.  The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> 2.  Of course the war on drugs is a failure.  Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns).  All need to be controlled.  For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market.  MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco.  Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.
> 
> That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.
> 
> After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fort Hood?
Click to expand...


*Fort Hood* is a gun free zone


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
Click to expand...


Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now _against_ selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.

The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cars and driving are NOT a right protected by the Constitution. Fire arms are. What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE do you not understand. It means no punitive tax on firearms and no insurance charges.
> 
> Unless of course we need insurance for freedom of worship freedom of speech, or our criminal protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah which is why the comparison is BS.  Thanks for echoing my point made about 30 pages ago.
Click to expand...


You can't have it both ways. Your argument  pages ago wasn't about whether we should pay for constitutional rights. It was about ridding the world of a device that is involved in injury and death. The point is there are all kinds of objects involved in injury and death and you are hypocrite for advocating policy that is aimed at discouraging and stigmatizing the ownership of just one of those objects (guns) while not applying the same standard to all the other object that can be involved in injury and death. Many of them even more so than guns.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no panacea to cure all ills.  What I've suggested is a rational step in fixing an out of control situation.  In response to your points:
> 
> 1.  The criminal unless licensed will face one-year in jail, a $5,000 fine and lose for life his/her ability to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> 2.  Of course the war on drugs is a failure.  Prohibition does not work (for drugs, alcohol or guns).  All need to be controlled.  For example, Marijuana (MJ) is used recreationally by millions of Americans every day and its use supports a criminal enterprise and a multi billion dollar black market.  MJ should, IMO, be removed from Schedule I and treated as two other commonly used and more dangerous drugs - alcohol and tobacco.  Both of which are taxed and regulated by each state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.
> 
> That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.
> 
> After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fort Hood?
Click to expand...


Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed.  So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court.  Allstate took care of both of us.
> 
> No court was involved.
> 
> So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody.  And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?
Click to expand...


are you really trying to compare an accident resulting in a civil action (all insurance is for is so the courts are not clogged) with a criminal act against a person?

If we removed auto insurance the court load would go up by millions. By forcing people unconsituionally to have firearm insurance, how many court cases are we eliminating?

Also, what insurance can you get that covers criminal acts performed by yourself?


----------



## JoeB131

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.



If you aren't manufacturing them and private citizens don't have them, you won't have a supply to meet the demand... 



Rottweiler said:


> [
> That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.



Except for all those "Socalist" European countries that have done exactly that and have reduced murder rates down to less than a thousand.  Oh, and they do this without a Death Penalty, mostly.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.



I'm sure that's the wet dream of the Gun Industry, but usually, when you are in a room full of gasoline, you don't want to hand out more matches.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.



Oh, come on. James Holmes didn't pick that theatre because it was a no-gun zone. He picked it because a Batman movie was playing and he thought he was The Joker.  

There were armed guards at Columbine, a police force at VA Tech, and Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military installations.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.



So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.  

Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that crap is recycled from the 90's. Its meaningless. In the end, an outright ban will do nothing to stem gun violence. Sure, make it as hard as you can to get them, but then your Navy shooter would have just drove to the quarter deck with three five gallon buckets of fertilizer bomb. The tools of murder have been addressed. Not one Brady law did anything to stop this shooter. If we addressed crazy people and thugs 90% of this problem would be solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
Click to expand...


Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class. 

And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. They wouldn't do anything to help keep the poor in perpetual states of poverty. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements. But in Joe's imaginary world, the rich are responsible for poverty and are the ones who should be punished for it.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
Click to expand...


Envy, JoeB's favorite deadly sin. You are lucky stupidity isnt one as well.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
Click to expand...


You're joking, aren't you? How else did he kill 13 people? The same way Nadal Hasan did. If you're a contractor you know the weaknesses of the military base you're working in/for. It's funny you think you know what the inside of a military base is like. Have you ever been inside of one? Do you know what one is like? I don't think you do, Joe.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
Click to expand...


Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements.
Click to expand...


What policies are those, guy?  

You guys have been pushing austerity and cutting taxes for rich people as the key to getting more jobs for 30 years now.  

So where are the fucking jobs?  

Tax the rich, use that money to build roads and bridges and schools and guess what, we'll have jobs.   Dump these idiotic trade treaties that enable the world's worst regimes at the expense of the American worker.  

But let's be honest, the 1%ers don't want that. The closest they got full employment was under Clinton.  They had to pay a little more in taxes, but they were making record profits!  They just had to pay the wage slaves a little more.  

What? Pay the Wage Slaves?  FUck that. Impeach that fucker bringing us prosperity and peace!!!   He lied about a BLOW JOB!!!! 

Nice to see you idiots have your priorities. 

(Full disclosure, in 1999, I was one of these idiots screaming to impeach Clinton.  Now I wish we had him back.)


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.
Click to expand...


We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.  

And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.  

In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.  

Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.



> First of all, five of the nine potential mass shootings that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say allegedly because theres no evidence to corroborate the guards claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. Its absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.
> 
> And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.
> 
> In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.
> 
> Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, five of the nine potential mass shootings that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say allegedly because theres no evidence to corroborate the guards claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. Its absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".  

Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".
> 
> Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.



But the crazy people wouldn't have them either. 

Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun. 

WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and  Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What policies are those, guy?
> 
> You guys have been pushing austerity and cutting taxes for rich people as the key to getting more jobs for 30 years now.
> 
> So where are the fucking jobs?
> 
> Tax the rich, use that money to build roads and bridges and schools and guess what, we'll have jobs.   Dump these idiotic trade treaties that enable the world's worst regimes at the expense of the American worker.
> 
> But let's be honest, the 1%ers don't want that. The closest they got full employment was under Clinton.  They had to pay a little more in taxes, but they were making record profits!  They just had to pay the wage slaves a little more.
> 
> What? Pay the Wage Slaves?  FUck that. Impeach that fucker bringing us prosperity and peace!!!   He lied about a BLOW JOB!!!!
> 
> Nice to see you idiots have your priorities.
> 
> (Full disclosure, in 1999, I was one of these idiots screaming to impeach Clinton.  Now I wish we had him back.)
Click to expand...


1) Gee I was hoping you'd tell me, Joe. You liberals always seem to think you know what's best. 

2) First off, even if I had supported austerity and tax breaks for the rich, can you make a direct correlation between the poor being poor and the rich being rich?

3) Given that you want burger flippers to make $15 an hour, it shows you care more about greed than people. People like that aren't worth that kind of money. Basically all you're doing is paying them to sate America's deadly fast food habit. You accuse rich people of greed, yet you whine about the minimum wage not being enough. Since when has it ever been enough? That's greed. That's rank avarice. 

4) Spare me your Occupy 1%er crap. That was so September of 2011. You don't care, you're proving each time you speak. Why is it they are still in poverty? Just what has welfare and foodstamps done to bring them out of it? You whine about wanting jobs, you blame the rich, but then you are passing healthcare plans that kill jobs and asking for insane wages that even the richest businessman would never pay you. Your own greed is killing the workforce. Never happy with what you have you make a habit of demanding more and more. Its as if you act like you don't have to earn what you 'work' for. 

5) Your sarcasm is clear proof that your argument is weak.  But then again, I never accused you of having any priorities for those poor folks out there.


----------



## theHawk

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
Click to expand...


Wrong, we do have a plan.  Its called keeping criminals locked up in prison and the mentally insane locked up in mental hospitals.

Its something this country used to do, which is why mass murders were non-existant.  Now-a-days criminals get second chances, let loose on paroll, and mentally ill are just given some pills.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".
> 
> Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.
> 
> Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.
> 
> WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and  Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.
Click to expand...


The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack. 

If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it. 

Same old same old Joe.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.
> 
> And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.
> 
> In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.
> 
> Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, five of the nine potential mass shootings that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say allegedly because theres no evidence to corroborate the guards claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. Its absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Aaand... that's spin for you. The fact they were stopped by someone with a gun still remains. Argument debunked. You can make all the convoluted arguments for gun control you want, but if hadn't been for someone controlling one, more people would be dead. Abeit though there was the assailant controlling one too. But it's like matter and antimatter, you need one to cancel the other out.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> 1) Gee I was hoping you'd tell me, Joe. You liberals always seem to think you know what's best.
> 
> 2) First off, even if I had supported austerity and tax breaks for the rich, can you make a direct correlation between the poor being poor and the rich being rich?



Um, yeah. When the rich move a factory overseas or replace an employee with a machine or reduce a department from 8 people to 3 (like has happened at my job), but still require them to do the same amount of work, but then they don't reduce the price for a good or service, that really is a transfer of wealth from the WORKING CLASS to the MONIED CLASS. (Let's use the proper terms here.) 





TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 3) Given that you want burger flippers to make $15 an hour, it shows you care more about greed than people. People like that aren't worth that kind of money. Basically all you're doing is paying them to sate America's deadly fast food habit. You accuse rich people of greed, yet you whine about the minimum wage not being enough. Since when has it ever been enough? That's greed. That's rank avarice.



No, that's actually paying them a decent wage for hard work.  Again, going back to the Clinton years, those burger flipping jobs actually paid more than minimum wage.  And we were better off for it.  

Oh, the CEO of McDonald's made 8.25 million last year.  I think that is a lot more obscene than paying a "burger flipper" (you know the guy who is actually preparing the food) a decent wage.  

Oh, wait, didn't you say you don't even have a job?  




TemplarKormac said:


> 4) Spare me your Occupy 1%er crap. That was so September of 2011. You don't care, you're proving each time you speak. Why is it they are still in poverty? Just what has welfare and foodstamps done to bring them out of it? You whine about wanting jobs, you blame the rich, but then you are passing healthcare plans that kill jobs and asking for insane wages that even the richest businessman would never pay you. Your own greed is killing the workforce. Never happy with what you have you make a habit of demanding more and more. Its as if you act like you don't have to earn what you 'work' for.



Blaming any policy for the greed of the rich is like blaming a short dress for a rape.  The thing is these guys screwed their workers before ObamaCare, and they'd be screwing them ObamaCare or not.  

You spend on infrastructure and education, THAT produces jobs, that increases competitiveness.  Not some greedy CEO making 8 figures.  

Oh, by the way, MOST other countries, the CEO don't make 8 figures. They usually make about six.  Only in the US do we think rewarding greed is a good idea. 





TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 5) Your sarcasm is clear proof that your argument is weak.  But then again, I never accused you of having any priorities for those poor folks out there.



No, my sarcarism is a reflection of having to try to argue with a young punk who really hasn't lived all that much, really hasn't been out there in the real world.  

I'm 51. I've been working since I was 16. Worked from a little mom-and-pop Pizza place to today, where I work for a multi-national corporation and deal with associates all over the world. (This week, I worked on a project involving colleagues in Mexico, China and the Czech republic).  Been in the military.  Worked for both government and private entities.  

And what have you done?  Stayed at home, living off of others.  

Seriously, just shut the fuck up.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So shooting victims should be entitled to nothing except the satisfaction that the person that shot them is in jail?  May be satisfying but doesn't pay the bills now does it.
> 
> What is the argument against liability for guns since you've drawn the parallel so clearly between the two...
> 
> If both are such deadly weapons and all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
Click to expand...


Roads are a power that was ceded to government in the Constitution.  Guns are a right that was protected from Government in the Constitution.  Not only are they not the same, they are the opposite.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Aaand... that's spin for you. The fact they were stopped by someone with a gun still remains. Argument debunked. You can make all the convoluted arguments for gun control you want, but if hadn't been for someone controlling one, more people would be dead. Abeit though there was the assailant controlling one too. But it's like matter and antimatter, you need one to cancel the other out.



No, they were stopped by TRAINED PEOPLE, who were authorized to have guns after thorough background checks and extensive training.  

In short, not Cleetus and Clem who are keeping a gun on the rifle rack in case the gummit tries to take their guns.  

And frankly, these were all pretty rare cases.   In a couple, the rampage happened anyway.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two arguments against liability insurance.  First, you shouldn't have to pay for Constitutional rights.  Second, why guns?  Why not just require everyone to carry liability insurance?  You can injure, maim and murder people in so many ways.  Only a tiny percent of guns harm people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now _against_ selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.
> 
> The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.
Click to expand...


Oh okay; "it's wrong".  

Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place.  If you want to call it punative fine.  Sounds justified to me.  

Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc...  Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.  
Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon.  The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct?  His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.  

Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.  

As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy *federal* prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime).  The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police.  At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).  

I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring.  The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here.  Dunno.  

Thanks for the thoughful and civil response.  I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.  

Again, thanks for the debate.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".
> 
> Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.
> 
> Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.
> 
> WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and  Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.
> 
> If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.
> 
> Same old same old Joe.
Click to expand...


Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.  

You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one.  your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one. 

Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.  

Oh, and I've already stated my solution. 

Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.  

Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.


----------



## candycorn

theHawk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, we do have a plan.  Its called keeping criminals locked up in prison and the mentally insane locked up in mental hospitals.
> 
> Its something this country used to do, which is why mass murders were non-existant.  Now-a-days criminals get second chances, let loose on paroll, and mentally ill are just given some pills.
Click to expand...


When were they "non existant"?


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.
> 
> Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.
> 
> WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and  Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.
> 
> If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.
> 
> Same old same old Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.
> 
> You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one.  your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.
> 
> Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've already stated my solution.
> 
> Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.
> 
> Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.
Click to expand...


YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights. Only the people, when 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states agree get to decide my rights (not even then). 

Your solution is unconsitutional, and you sir are a fucking asshole.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place.  If you want to call it punative fine.  Sounds justified to me.



First of all, you're committing a logical fallacy called "begging the question."  We are saying that gun laws are not working with criminals and they harm victims.  You're just assuming the truth of your own position.  The whole point of this thread is to expose your lame belief for what it is.  Explain how it will work.  It doesn't and you can't, so you just assume the truth of your own view and pontificate on it.  Again, that's called begging the question.

So freedom of speech, the right to worship as you choose, protection from illegal search and seizure, Miranda, abortion, those can all be punitively taxed if government doesn't like them?  Can government punitively tax the media?  Can they punitively tax demonstrations?  Once again you're demonstrating that liberals aren't liberal, you're authoritarians who believe in the absolute power of the State.


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now _against_ selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.
> 
> The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh okay; "it's wrong".
> 
> Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place.  If you want to call it punative fine.  Sounds justified to me.
> 
> Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc...  Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
> Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon.  The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct?  His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.
> 
> Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.
> 
> As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy *federal* prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime).  The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police.  At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).
> 
> I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring.  The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here.  Dunno.
> 
> Thanks for the thoughful and civil response.  I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.
> 
> Again, thanks for the debate.
Click to expand...


Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## kaz

martybegan said:


> YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights



So they will just tax your rights, and Roberts will vote with them.  He has a career to think of you know...


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the odds of ending the attack would have gone up measurably if only a few people were packing, but your anti-gun zeal blinds you to that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have 300 million guns out there now, guy.
> 
> And incidents of good samaritans stopping shooting rampages are so rare they are unicorn sightings.
> 
> In fact, one website listed 9 cases where this supposedly happened, and when dissected, 7 of them involved trained law enforcement or military people.
> 
> Mass shootings, concealed carry: 9 things wrong with BuzzFeed?s article about 9 potential mass shootings that were stopped by someone with a personally owned firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, five of the nine potential mass shootings that the article mentions were thwarted not by brave private citizens but by off-duty or former police officers, two of whom were working as security personnel at the venues where the incidents took place. A sixth was stopped by an Army Reserve officer. A seventh was allegedly stopped by a certified security guard who used to work at the mall where the incident took place. (I say allegedly because theres no evidence to corroborate the guards claim that he compelled the shooter to retreat.) These people may have been using their personally owned firearms, yes, but they also knew how to use them in dangerous situations. Its absurd to pretend that these well-trained authority figures can be compared to untrained civilians with concealed-carry permits and guns they bought at Walmart. The former have been taught how to respond to crisis situations. The latter, generally, have not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You sound like a Zimmerman wannabe.


----------



## candycorn

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you, because the law already holds you liable. Haven't you ever heard of a civil trial? What is it you think insurance would afford someone that the law doesn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The few times I've been in car wrecks (my fault once), my insurance paid to have both of our cars fixed.  So because I crashed into Mr. and Ms. Jones and had insurance; they didn't have to take me to court.  Allstate took care of both of us.
> 
> No court was involved.
> 
> So your scenario is that the victim of a gunshot has to deal with their recovery--which ain't cheap by the way--then hire lawyers to go after the perp who likely is in custody.  And when they win; gee...the get what exactly; the street value of the beretta that was used to shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you really trying to compare an accident resulting in a civil action (all insurance is for is so the courts are not clogged) with a criminal act against a person?
Click to expand...

In terms of what ends up in the injured person's wallet; yes.  



martybegan said:


> If we removed auto insurance the court load would go up by millions. By forcing people unconsituionally to have firearm insurance, how many court cases are we eliminating?


Not so many I suppose.  I really don't know.  

But lets say there is an armed robbery at Burger King one evening.  The criminal shoots the clerk and gets away with a whopping $300.00.  The clerk is going to be okay and the cops catch the shooter.

The shooter is in jail.  The clerk is in ICU.  The shooter gets 3 hots and a cot.  The clerk gets $10,000 a day in medical bills and no income from Burger King since she's not working.  

If you force the guy to buy insurance when he bought the gun; then you have some financial remedy for the clerk.  

Now the counter argument is that the shooter isn't going to buy insurance.  You're probably right when you say that.  But consider what happens; it's another thing you can charge the criminal with.  It's also something you can throw at whomever sold the gun to the shooter.  But if the shooter "borrowed" the gun from his parents to do this, it likely will have the proper insurance.  

It's not perfect but it's something.  



martybegan said:


> Also, what insurance can you get that covers criminal acts performed by yourself?



Not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## candycorn

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now _against_ selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.
> 
> The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh okay; "it's wrong".
> 
> Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place.  If you want to call it punative fine.  Sounds justified to me.
> 
> Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc...  Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
> Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon.  The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct?  His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.
> 
> Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.
> 
> As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy *federal* prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime).  The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police.  At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).
> 
> I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring.  The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here.  Dunno.
> 
> Thanks for the thoughful and civil response.  I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.
> 
> Again, thanks for the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.
Click to expand...


I think it falls short of that.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap.  Right?  

But who knows with our whacky court system.  Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin.  He got like 20 years.  Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less...  sheesh.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

theHawk said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, we do have a plan.  Its called keeping criminals locked up in prison and the mentally insane locked up in mental hospitals.
> 
> Its something this country used to do, which is why mass murders were non-existant.  Now-a-days criminals get second chances, let loose on paroll, and mentally ill are just given some pills.
Click to expand...


You're working on a fallacy. They don't really lock people up, anyone, and throw away the key.


----------



## jon_berzerk

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Kind of tough for a bystander to take action in most of the cases, consdering they were done in "gun free zones".
> 
> Also, according to your fantasy world retired police officers wouldnt be able to carry, nor off duty police officers, nor that army reserve officer. Only governmental employees would have access to guns, and only when they are at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the crazy people wouldn't have them either.
> 
> Or at the very least, they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store, slap down a wad of greasy bills, and walk out with a shiny new gun.
> 
> WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis, Cho Sueng Heng, James Holmes and  Jared Loughner were able to do despite years of documented mental problems.
Click to expand...


*WHich is EXACTLY what Aaron Alexis*

his was used


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What policies are those, guy?
> 
> You guys have been pushing austerity and cutting taxes for rich people as the key to getting more jobs for 30 years now.
> 
> So where are the fucking jobs?
> 
> Tax the rich, use that money to build roads and bridges and schools and guess what, we'll have jobs.   Dump these idiotic trade treaties that enable the world's worst regimes at the expense of the American worker.
> 
> But let's be honest, the 1%ers don't want that. The closest they got full employment was under Clinton.  They had to pay a little more in taxes, but they were making record profits!  They just had to pay the wage slaves a little more.
> 
> What? Pay the Wage Slaves?  FUck that. Impeach that fucker bringing us prosperity and peace!!!   He lied about a BLOW JOB!!!!
> 
> Nice to see you idiots have your priorities.
> 
> (Full disclosure, in 1999, I was one of these idiots screaming to impeach Clinton.  Now I wish we had him back.)
Click to expand...


Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The crazy people would get thier guns, just like crack addicts get thier crack.
> 
> If they had years of documented mental problems, someone should have had them mentally adjuicated. Its the failure of the State and the mental health system, and you want to punish the people for it.
> 
> Same old same old Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.
> 
> You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one.  your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.
> 
> Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've already stated my solution.
> 
> Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.
> 
> Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights. Only the people, when 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states agree get to decide my rights (not even then).
> 
> Your solution is unconsitutional, and you sir are a fucking asshole.
Click to expand...


Fuck the Constitution. 

Scalia gets replaced by a non-asshole.  Then the Second Amendment is about Militias.  

You lose.  

But, shit, we don't even have to wait for that. 

Just repeal the law that immunizes gun sellers from the carnage their product causes. 

Betcha they won't be so keen on your "rights" after theyve paid out 8 figures to the family of toddler shot at a pre-school.


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh okay; "it's wrong".
> 
> Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place.  If you want to call it punative fine.  Sounds justified to me.
> 
> Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc...  Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
> Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon.  The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct?  His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.
> 
> Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.
> 
> As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy *federal* prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime).  The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police.  At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).
> 
> I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring.  The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here.  Dunno.
> 
> Thanks for the thoughful and civil response.  I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.
> 
> Again, thanks for the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it falls short of that.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap.  Right?
> 
> But who knows with our whacky court system.  Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin.  He got like 20 years.  Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less...  sheesh.
Click to expand...


If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement. 

If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?

Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> [
> 
> Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.



What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?  

EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership. 

EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours. 

EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.  

We aren't doing it right.


----------



## jon_berzerk

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it falls short of that.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap.  Right?
> 
> But who knows with our whacky court system.  Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin.  He got like 20 years.  Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less...  sheesh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.
> 
> If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?
> 
> Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?
Click to expand...


that is exactly what the *Saturday night special laws*s did 

it prevented the poor *namely the black poor *from buying affordable self protection


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, sorry, I don't see not letting you have something you don't need to be a punishment.
> 
> You don't need a gun, and nothing good comes of you having one.  your little meltdowns you have here on a daily basis already tell me that you are unsuitable to have one.
> 
> Point was, every one of those guys were mentally unstable, everyone in their lives knew it, and someone sold them a gun anyway.
> 
> Oh, and I've already stated my solution.
> 
> Gun Sellers and Manufacturers being held CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY liable for the damage done by their products.
> 
> Guess what, the first time Smith and Wesson has to pay out an 8 figure settlement will be the day they bend over backwards to make sure that a crazy person doesn't get their products.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU dont get to decide how I exercise my rights. The government doesnt get to decide how I excercise my rights. Only the people, when 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states agree get to decide my rights (not even then).
> 
> Your solution is unconsitutional, and you sir are a fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fuck the Constitution. *
> 
> Scalia gets replaced by a non-asshole.  Then the Second Amendment is about Militias.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> But, shit, we don't even have to wait for that.
> 
> Just repeal the law that immunizes gun sellers from the carnage their product causes.
> 
> Betcha they won't be so keen on your "rights" after theyve paid out 8 figures to the family of toddler shot at a pre-school.
Click to expand...


Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.
> 
> If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?
> 
> Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?



If rich people were being killed by gun violence, we'd see gun control really quick.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
Click to expand...


Well, don't we? LMAOROFL


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.



The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer. 

BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.  

Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.  

Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.  

If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win. 

Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.
> 
> If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?
> 
> Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If rich people were being killed by gun violence, we'd see gun control really quick.
Click to expand...


The poor people being killed are either criminals themselves, or poor people in bad areas, most of which have stirct gun control laws. Keep being stupid.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
Click to expand...


Rights are not up for popular vote, we've been through this before asshole.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
Click to expand...


Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and in Joe's imaginary world, this has everything to do with gun control. No liberal I see on a forum cares about the poor, elsewise they would support policies that put them to work, not policies which keep them on welfare and foodstamps for indefinite periods of time. They wouldn't do anything to help keep the poor in perpetual states of poverty. If they were all working, that would mean billions of more dollars being generated and injected into the economy as opposed to billions being spent giving them entitlements. But in Joe's imaginary world, the rich are responsible for poverty and are the ones who should be punished for it.
Click to expand...


He'd have a great time at Disneyland!


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Then the Second Amendment is about Militias



Because of course the Founders in the Constitution, which ceded enumerated powers only from the people to government, decided they wanted to make sure that ... government ... could have guns.  Gotcha.

Later of course they regretted the jello shots they'd done the night before they wrote that one...


----------



## martybegan

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
Click to expand...


JoeB would gladly suck government dick if push comes to shove. He'd be the first to bend over and take it when the government removed his freedoms "for his safety"


----------



## kaz

martybegan said:


> JoeB would gladly suck government dick if push comes to shove. He'd be the first to bend over and take it when the government removed his freedoms "for his safety"



The funniest liberals are the ones who start getting all cynical like Joe.  The connotation of cynical being that one is sick of authority and being told what to do, and Joe is actually cynical of people who are sick of authority and being told what to do.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.



How about a class action lawsuit against planned parenthood and abortion providers, Joe?  Shall we expose all their internal documentation too?

I'm pro-choice and pro freedom of gun ownership.  I don't have to worry about being caught in the hypocrisy trap the left does.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1) Gee I was hoping you'd tell me, Joe. You liberals always seem to think you know what's best.
> 
> 2) First off, even if I had supported austerity and tax breaks for the rich, can you make a direct correlation between the poor being poor and the rich being rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah. When the rich move a factory overseas or replace an employee with a machine or reduce a department from 8 people to 3 (like has happened at my job), but still require them to do the same amount of work, but then they don't reduce the price for a good or service, that really is a transfer of wealth from the WORKING CLASS to the MONIED CLASS. (Let's use the proper terms here.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 3) Given that you want burger flippers to make $15 an hour, it shows you care more about greed than people. People like that aren't worth that kind of money. Basically all you're doing is paying them to sate America's deadly fast food habit. You accuse rich people of greed, yet you whine about the minimum wage not being enough. Since when has it ever been enough? That's greed. That's rank avarice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's actually paying them a decent wage for hard work.  Again, going back to the Clinton years, those burger flipping jobs actually paid more than minimum wage.  And we were better off for it.
> 
> Oh, the CEO of McDonald's made 8.25 million last year.  I think that is a lot more obscene than paying a "burger flipper" (you know the guy who is actually preparing the food) a decent wage.
> 
> Oh, wait, didn't you say you don't even have a job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Spare me your Occupy 1%er crap. That was so September of 2011. You don't care, you're proving each time you speak. Why is it they are still in poverty? Just what has welfare and foodstamps done to bring them out of it? You whine about wanting jobs, you blame the rich, but then you are passing healthcare plans that kill jobs and asking for insane wages that even the richest businessman would never pay you. Your own greed is killing the workforce. Never happy with what you have you make a habit of demanding more and more. Its as if you act like you don't have to earn what you 'work' for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blaming any policy for the greed of the rich is like blaming a short dress for a rape.  The thing is these guys screwed their workers before ObamaCare, and they'd be screwing them ObamaCare or not.
> 
> You spend on infrastructure and education, THAT produces jobs, that increases competitiveness.  Not some greedy CEO making 8 figures.
> 
> Oh, by the way, MOST other countries, the CEO don't make 8 figures. They usually make about six.  Only in the US do we think rewarding greed is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 5) Your sarcasm is clear proof that your argument is weak.  But then again, I never accused you of having any priorities for those poor folks out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my sarcarism is a reflection of having to try to argue with a young punk who really hasn't lived all that much, really hasn't been out there in the real world.
> 
> I'm 51. I've been working since I was 16. Worked from a little mom-and-pop Pizza place to today, where I work for a multi-national corporation and deal with associates all over the world. (This week, I worked on a project involving colleagues in Mexico, China and the Czech republic).  Been in the military.  Worked for both government and private entities.
> 
> And what have you done?  Stayed at home, living off of others.
> 
> Seriously, just shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Seriously, when will you ever back your shit up Joe? Most of what you just said is unsubstantiated.  Other than your glittering resume, you are a liar, you do a disservice to all men and women in the military with your attitude. This young punk knows more about his world than you do in half the time you've lived. That is absolutely pathetic for someone such as you.

I'm 25, I've been in and out of three jobs since my 18th birthday, due to the economic collapse, I've suffered bouts of debilitating almost suicidal depressive states as a result. I live in a family rich in military history. Firstly, I had an Uncle who served in the Hell On Wheels battalion during World War II, another who was captured by the Germans. My grandfather was a military contractor in San Antonio, Texas who built various types of military equipment for various branches of the Military, my second grandfather served two tours in Vietnam, I had a great uncle who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima, my father served in the First Gulf War in Iraq and Kuwait. And one of my brothers just finished a tour in Afghanistan. 

It's funny that you would criticize me for living off of others when you advocate people living off the government dole. Surprise Joe! I don't. When I was unfairly fired from my first job in 2006, I didn't apply for unemployment. In 2010, I could have still done so, but I didn't. In 2012 I managed not to either, and I still won't. It serves me no purpose to further indebt my government by being yet another suckling on the government teet. 

If you think paying someone 15 bucks an hour for flipping a burger is a "fair wage" those 51 years of life have failed to teach you anything meaningful. Heck, I was happy to earn $5.15 an hour. It was fair for the job I did. 

However, you never really did answer my argument did you? All you did was rail against rich people, call me a punk, you still never connected the dots between how rich people make other people poor and oh wait, you still never made your case for total gun control. 

You're the one who needs to quit running his mouth. You are naive and foolish. You have no insight into this world whatsoever. If you think you've been through hell, guess again.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
> 
> Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
Click to expand...


What part of 'few people are armed on a Military base' did not get into your brain?


----------



## Wry Catcher

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
> 
> EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
> 
> We aren't doing it right.
Click to expand...


Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
> 
> EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
> 
> We aren't doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
Click to expand...


Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again. 

After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
> 
> EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
> 
> We aren't doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
Click to expand...


Well, of course you right if you are referring to "liberal facts" make "liberals" very angry.  Liberal facts of course only being convincing to liberals as they are simply statements that support liberal arguments no matter how empirically wrong they are.  A lie of course being any statement that counters a liberal argument, no matter how empirically true it is.

I'm not sure I'd say really though any "facts" make you angry, you are angry about everything.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
> 
> EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
> 
> We aren't doing it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've seen a few of your posts. So I say I'd have to agree with that statement.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same with cars I suppose....right?  Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't.  Simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member ) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now _against_ selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.
> 
> The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh okay; "it's wrong".
> 
> Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place.  If you want to call it punative fine.  Sounds justified to me.
> 
> Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc...  Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
> Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon.  The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct?  His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.
> 
> Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.
> 
> As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy *federal* prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime).  The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police.  At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).
> 
> I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring.  The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here.  Dunno.
> 
> Thanks for the thoughful and civil response.  I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.
> 
> Again, thanks for the debate.
Click to expand...


Do you think the parents of a kid killed by a drunk driver considers that any less of an atrocity? What you propose is an UNreasonable response to an unreasonable situation. It is not reasonable to punish and stigmatize the 95% of gun onwers who have not and will never hurt anyone with their firearms in an attempt to rid the world of the 5% who aren't going to abide by your proposals in the first place. THAT is why your proposal is entirely irrational. 

On our comparision. While you think you're treating your car accident and someoen who kills someone else with a gun the same, you're not. There's a difference between intent and liability. Let's really make the scenarios same. While you were at fault in your accident, I assume you didn't intend to cause it, right? I'm sure you didn't leave the house thinking I'm gonna slam my car into someone on purpose today. Let's pretend you had done that though. You still think your auto insurance company should cover the damage? Had you intentional caused that accident you would be going to court. The purpose of insurance is to cover ACCIDENTS. You wanna make a case for liability insurance for gun accidents, fine. But we're talking a mere fraction of all the guns that are out there that are involved in injury or death and a mere fraction of those injuries and deaths that are just accidents. Your auto insurance company is not gonna cover you intentionally hurting someone with your car. When there is intent to injure you cross the line between an insurance matter and a legal matter. Again you're not treating the two the same. You aren't proposing that we jack up the taxes on cars in attempt to rid the streets of them to get rid of the fraction of people that handle them irresponsibily.


----------



## Wry Catcher

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
> 
> EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
> 
> EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
> 
> We aren't doing it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
Click to expand...


A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand. 

I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
Click to expand...


I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I. 



The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
Click to expand...


"gun carnage"

Very metaphorical, yet.. very inaccurate. Guns themselves do nothing. It's the human being who commits the carnage.

The rest of us were saddened when you liberals chose to use the death of 26 children to push a gun control agenda. What's the matter with you? Rather than mourn the dead, you say "See?! Look! This is why we need gun control!" That Wry, is truly disturbing.


----------



## Wry Catcher

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.

You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
> 
> *You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional *and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
Click to expand...


And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
> 
> You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
Click to expand...


Just because you're an addled, traumatized cop gives little excuse. Cops always use their badge of honor to whimsically get what they want.


----------



## Spoonman

Wry Catcher said:


> _1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
> 
> Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.
> 
> 2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
> 
> 3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.
> 
> 4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply._
> 
> So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?



ok, as long as we are willing to give the same penalties for unlicensed or insured cars.  un prescribed drugs.


----------



## Wry Catcher

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
> 
> *You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional *and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?
Click to expand...


Be  real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).

I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed.  Never have, never will.

I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check.  Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history,  work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job.  Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job.  Someone in HR fucked up).

That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.  

As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> As I noted before, the Second Amendment as interpreted by the USSC has become obsolete.  Sadly and to our nations shame it will take more than the murder of twenty 6 and 7 year old children to restore some semblance of sanity and civility in our country.



If you truly believe the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, then why wouldn't it not be hypocritical not to drastically alter police and command structure? And get rid of the dead-weight while you're at it.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.



When there is a gun in a household, does that mean that anyone who picks up that gun who lives in the house, for example, to move it to a safer location, safe from children, would be guilty of a crime, because they are not licensed? There is no law that requires all guns to be locked up or hidden.


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
> 
> *You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional *and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be  real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).
> 
> I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed.  Never have, never will.
> 
> I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check.  Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history,  work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job.  Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job.  Someone in HR fucked up).
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.
> 
> As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.
Click to expand...


Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk. 

and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least. 

The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.


----------



## Wry Catcher

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is a gun in a household, does that mean that anyone who picks up that gun who lives in the house, for example, to move it to a safer location, safe from children, would be guilty of a crime, because they are not licensed? There is no law that requires all guns to be locked up or hidden.
Click to expand...


Better check you local/state laws on securing a firearm.


----------



## Spoonman

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
> 
> *You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional *and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be  real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).
> 
> I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed.  Never have, never will.
> 
> I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check.  Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history,  work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job.  Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job.  Someone in HR fucked up).
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.
> 
> As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.
Click to expand...


yet we have the fort hood masacre, the ex cop in CA killings, the Navy killer.  all back ground checked all mass killers.   seems like back ground checked people are killing more than non back ground checked


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is a gun in a household, does that mean that anyone who picks up that gun who lives in the house, for example, to move it to a safer location, safe from children, would be guilty of a crime, because they are not licensed? There is no law that requires all guns to be locked up or hidden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better check you local/state laws on securing a firearm.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that I can't keep a gun under my pillow? Also, answer my question.


----------



## Wry Catcher

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be  real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).
> 
> I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed.  Never have, never will.
> 
> I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check.  Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history,  work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job.  Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job.  Someone in HR fucked up).
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.  Oh, I almost forgot, I also taught at the academy.
> 
> As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.
> 
> and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.
> 
> The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law) - laws of arrest and firearms training - plus dept. policies including use of force; and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.  

I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA.  Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked.  Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be  real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).
> 
> I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed.  Never have, never will.
> 
> I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check.  Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history,  work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job.  Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job.  Someone in HR fucked up).
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.
> 
> As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.
> 
> and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.
> 
> The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force;  and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.
> 
> I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA.  Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked.  Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.
Click to expand...


Maybe that's just it. You are too close to the problem to have enough common sense to be the least bit practical.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
Click to expand...


Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be  real Windbag, just for once; you question is nothing but a false dilemma (look up logical fallacies).
> 
> I'm not proposing private ownership of guns be outlawed.  Never have, never will.
> 
> I've worked for four different LE Agencies and each required a complete and through background check.  Most street cop backgrounds include a criminal history, financial history, medical history,  work history, marital history, educational background and a series of psychological evaluations both written and oral plus a number personal references are interviewed followed by at least one year of probation under the supervision of a field training officer before given a permanent job.  Other agencies for which I worked were more detailed (which BTW makes me wonder how Eric Snowden got his job.  Someone in HR fucked up).
> 
> That said I've proposed private citizens who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed.  Law enforcement personnel convicted of Domestic Violence loose their jobs and conditions of probation or parole deny them their right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.  Oh, I almost forgot, I also taught at the academy.
> 
> As a private citizen they too would be required to be licensed and with a criminal record of violence would be denied one, as would those ever detained on a civil commitment as a danger to themselves or others, those convicted of felonies and violent misdemeanors, as well as anyone on probation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.
> 
> and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.
> 
> The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force;  and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.
> 
> I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA.  Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked.  Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.
Click to expand...


Its that "Im better than you because I used to be a cop" attitude that pisses people off so much. This isnt about the actual mechanics of the training, its about how we give police certain abilities to perform, that if performed by anyone else would be considered assault, kidnapping and a host of other crimes. 

You are so full of yourself over your training and your desired "special" status of being a LEO that you forget your original role and purpose, which is to keep us from having to take the law into our own hands, not to lord over us like some medival knights.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
Click to expand...


Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
Click to expand...






Why don't you also keep track of every gun used in a crime and trace it to the current owners too, idiot?


----------



## Steven_R

Wry Catcher said:


> Some form of gun control - *or people control* - seem rational, at least to rational people.



There it is folks.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
Click to expand...


"People Control" seems "rational" to you?!? Really? Ok - 'nough said. Thanks Saddam...


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
> 
> 
> 
> The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit.  You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board.  Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me.  Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
> 
> You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others.  Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
Click to expand...


Then you should know that the only solution is to make sure law abiding citizens are armed.

No guns used here chief - just another *stabbing* victim (who obviously doesn't matter in your world as I don't see you calling to outlaw knives):


----------



## Spoonman

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
Click to expand...


and the navy yard killing is a graphic example of how back ground checks fail to stop the problem


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  *Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.*  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
Click to expand...


I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
Why do you dismiss THEM?
Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years? Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown. That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me. Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.



Strawman.  No one is saying that deaths are the price of freedom.  We're saying your gun laws are increasing the deaths because shooters know they won't get shot back at.  It's your restricting freedom that's causing more death, not our avocation of freedom.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Steven_R said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some form of gun control - *or people control* - seem rational, at least to rational people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is folks.
Click to expand...


You're correct, thanks for biting.  The point being - and which went way over your head - is that gun control, i.e. licensing and laws on gun running, only effects those who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.  It also won't deprive anyone of their right under the Second Amendment, if they are not felons or child molesters, drunks or drug addicts, mentally ill or violent misdemeanants - characteristics that all sane citizens understand should not own, possess or ever have in their custody or control a gun.

Licensing will have no impact on the citizen who has chosen not to own, possess or ever have in his/her custody and control a gun.  There it is!


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  *Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.*  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
> Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
> Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
> Why do you dismiss THEM?
> Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.
Click to expand...


Dead on, Ernie.  Pun intended.  Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.  All the left are doing is maximizing the carnage.  They should be so proud.


----------



## Spoonman

Wry Catcher said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some form of gun control - *or people control* - seem rational, at least to rational people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're correct, thanks for biting.  The point being - and which went way over your head - is that gun control, i.e. licensing and laws on gun running, only effects those who choose to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun.  It also won't deprive anyone of their right under the Second Amendment, if they are not felons or child molesters, drunks or drug addicts, mentally ill or violent misdemeanants - characteristics that all sane citizens understand should not own, possess or ever have in their custody or control a gun.
> 
> Licensing will have no impact on the citizen who has chosen not to own, possess or ever have in his/her custody and control a gun.  There it is!
Click to expand...


so i guess what you are trying to imply is that no registered guns kill people?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your outrage over 330 homicides so far this year in Chicago.
> It really sucks when kids get killed. It sucks whenever mass shootings occur, but you want to use a catastrophe for political gain a la Rahm Emanuel. Where is your outrage over the 1,100 homicide victims in Chicago since Emanuel took office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  *Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.*  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
> Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
> Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
> Why do you dismiss THEM?
> Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.
Click to expand...


I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.  

The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur.  All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child.  However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.


----------



## Bern80

Wry Catcher said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
> 
> After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
> 
> I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
Click to expand...


That focus on what the person used to commit the atrocity rather than the actual person that commited it is what I find most disturbing. Those of you that want to elminate or restrict access to guns, does that address the depression or mental state of someone like Lanza? Does it address missteps in parenting that may have occured? Does it address bullying that may have contribited to that act of violence. The answer to all of those while you are all so focused on guns, is no.

It's just odd to me that's not what the national debate turned out to be. It was focused on what he used; guns and how to regulate them. It wasn't about the root cause like why are some kids so depressed they need to shoot people. How do we teach children not to be bullys. How do we properly parent our children so this doesn't happen. THAT is what needs to be focused on because that is the root cause of these mass shootings. But no, once again, liberals being what they are would rather not hold individuals accountable for their actions. They rather blame someone, or in this case someTHING else.


----------



## Wry Catcher

martybegan said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you need a liscense to exercise your right to speech, religous practice, trial by jury and anything else, we can talk.
> 
> and considering how much domestic crap is hidden by police officers to cover up for OTHER police officers, i find your point amusing to say the least.
> 
> The background check is not about being armed, its about having the power to take someone into custody and make them go through the legal system, that is the REAL power of the police. Being armed is a right they have, the same as the rest of us, its the overreaching power to arrest that has to be controlled and trained on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force;  and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.
> 
> I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA.  Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked.  Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its that "Im better than you because I used to be a cop" attitude that pisses people off so much. This isnt about the actual mechanics of the training, its about how we give police certain abilities to perform, that if performed by anyone else would be considered assault, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.
> 
> I do know better than you, if that pisses you off - or others - count to ten and then consider the content of what I post.
> 
> You are so full of yourself over your training and your desired "special" status of being a LEO that you forget your original role and purpose, which is to keep us from having to take the law into our own hands, not to lord over us like some medival knights.
Click to expand...


LEO's have a special status only in terms of the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights.  They are protected from false allegations and those who make such untruth statements can be charged with a misdemeanor.  Their personal records are not open to the public unless a Pitchess Motion is approved by the court.  Otherwise there 'special status' grants them a duty to go in harms way to protect their community.

When a LEO discharges his weapon the matter is taken seriously and if the use of force policy is not properly followed and internal affairs investigation commences.

I suggest you look into a Ride Along with your local police or sheriff's dept., it might give you a *real* understanding of the job.


----------



## rdean

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Why the sudden interest?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you be happy if my post included every act of gun violence for the past 50 years?  *Sandy Hook is a graphic example of the horror of gun violence, as was the news that a 3 year old was a victim in the latest slaughter in Chitown.*  That you (I suppose) and others simply dismiss such acts of evil as the cost of our freedom to own guns is what really outrages me.  Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
> Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
> Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
> Why do you dismiss THEM?
> Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.
> 
> The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur.  All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child.  *However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.*
Click to expand...


Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?

The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?


----------



## martybegan

Wry Catcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for the lecture; I was one department's training officer and later was head of personnel wherein we recruited, evaluated and offered conditional appointments to new employees, conditional, based on successful completion of all of the points noted above plus 832 PC (CA Law), laws of arrest and firearms training plus dept. policies including use of force;  and, in another agency ran both the domestic violence unit and IA.
> 
> I also provided technical assistance to the Feds and the St. of CA.  Post your CV which outlines your experience in all or any of the areas of LE where I worked.  Maybe then we can debate real issue with more technical expertise to see who knows and who is full of bull shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its that "Im better than you because I used to be a cop" attitude that pisses people off so much. This isnt about the actual mechanics of the training, its about how we give police certain abilities to perform, that if performed by anyone else would be considered assault, kidnapping and a host of other crimes.
> 
> I do know better than you, if that pisses you off - or others - count to ten and then consider the content of what I post.
> 
> You are so full of yourself over your training and your desired "special" status of being a LEO that you forget your original role and purpose, which is to keep us from having to take the law into our own hands, not to lord over us like some medival knights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEO's have a special status only in terms of the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights.  They are protected from false allegations and those who make such untruth statements can be charged with a misdemeanor.  Their personal records are not open to the public unless a Pitchess Motion is approved by the court.  Otherwise there 'special status' grants them a duty to go in harms way to protect their community.
> 
> When a LEO discharges his weapon the matter is taken seriously and if the use of force policy is not properly followed and internal affairs investigation commences.
> 
> I suggest you look into a Ride Along with your local police or sheriff's dept., it might give you a *real* understanding of the job.
Click to expand...


Considering i live in NYC, ride alongs dont happen. and in NYC cronyism in the PD is rampant. If you are cool with the cops you get a gun permit. If not? Hell no. Cops cover for each other all the damn time, and I know, because some of my friends are cops, and they openly admit it. 

As for the duty to go in harms way, cops are not actually liable to protect you, its been decided in court. so there goes that reason for being special. 

In NYC i am a 2nd class citizen when it comes to 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Spoonman

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
> Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
> Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
> Why do you dismiss THEM?
> Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.
> 
> The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur.  All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child.  *However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?
> 
> The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?
Click to expand...


and there you have uncovered the key to the liberal way of thinking.  why are they more special?  because they can be exploited to sell an agenda.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Ok - I think you missed my point. You're plan is fine - but my point was the criminals (who are banned from possessing firearms) will still get them through theft, the black market, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you aren't manufacturing them and private citizens don't have them, you won't have a supply to meet the demand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> That's why none of it really matters. Murder is an offense punishable by death and it still occurs millions of times per year in America. No legislation is going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for all those "Socalist" European countries that have done exactly that and have reduced murder rates down to less than a thousand.  Oh, and they do this without a Death Penalty, mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> The more practical approach, and the only real solution, is to relax restrictions and encourage more law abiding citizens carrying, more law enforcement, more private security. In short - more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's the wet dream of the Gun Industry, but usually, when you are in a room full of gasoline, you don't want to hand out more matches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> After all, it's no coincidence that the massacres keep occurring where guns are banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, come on. James Holmes didn't pick that theatre because it was a no-gun zone. He picked it because a Batman movie was playing and he thought he was The Joker.
> 
> There were armed guards at Columbine, a police force at VA Tech, and Ft. Hood and the Navy Yard were freaking military installations.
Click to expand...

You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?


----------



## Steven_R

Ernie S. said:


> You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?



They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if locking up people was the answer, we'd have solved the problem.
> 
> We currently lock up 2 million of our citizens.  Half a milion more than Communist China which has four times as many.  Clearly locking them up isn't helping, and might even be making matters worse.  (A whole segment of Americans with no employment prospects and anger management issues.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
Click to expand...

What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.


----------



## Ernie S.

Steven_R said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.
Click to expand...


Those in training usually have weapons in their barracks, but they don't have ammunition except on the range.


----------



## Spoonman

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
> Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
> It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.
Click to expand...


you have to wonder where they come up with this shit.  but what you really have to wonder about are why are there so many frigging stupid people out there willing to believe it.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> 
> 
> What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
> Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
> It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have to wonder where they come up with this shit.  but what you really have to wonder about are why are there so many frigging stupid people out there willing to believe it.
Click to expand...


It's the funniest part of their "Fox News" talking points.  The Republicans can't get the socons, RINOs, libertarians, tea partiers and the rest to agree on anything.  The Democrats agree on everything.  And they repeat these same idiotic points endlessly.  Like that FoxNews programs us all.  Apparently they're programming us all to disagree...


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
> Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
> It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have to wonder where they come up with this shit.  but what you really have to wonder about are why are there so many frigging stupid people out there willing to believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the funniest part of their "Fox News" talking points.  The Republicans can't get the socons, RINOs, libertarians, tea partiers and the rest to agree on anything.  The Democrats agree on everything.  And they repeat these same idiotic points endlessly.  Like that FoxNews programs us all.  Apparently they're programming us all to disagree...
Click to expand...


they can't understand that republicans are not goose stepping idiots like they are.  republicans are a collection of individuals with individual opinions. not a party line ideal only.  we see dissagreement as a normal process.  they see it as dissention among the ranks


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> Why the sudden interest?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html



The point, dean, since you came late to the party, is that they already have access to guns and they aren't going to obey laws.  If you read the op, my point was that kids in high school can get as much pot as they want.  How are you going to keep guns, which are everywhere inside and outside the country, from criminals when we can't even keep pot away from high schoolers when pot is completely illegal.

Law abiding citizens on the other hand, by definition, follow the law.  So, what you liberals are doing is making sure that criminals can slaughter Americans with little risk to themselves.  And in mass shootings, you maximize the carnage.

Any points on the actual discussion?


----------



## RKMBrown

Steven_R said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.
Click to expand...


Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?


----------



## P@triot

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a welfare dependent class of losers to vote democrat... yeah that's not sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
> Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
> It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

RKMBrown said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?
Click to expand...


Well *retarded* is what Bill Clinton and the Dumbocrats do best.....


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?
Click to expand...


They should just hand out daisies


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dismiss any mass shootings. Why do you dismiss 500 plus homicides/year in Chicago? Could it be that they don't fit your agenda?
> Mass shootings make news. People are and should be outraged by them, but mass shootings account for a very small percentage of homicides.
> Mass shootings accounted for 88 deaths in 2012 and 68 so far in 2013. 150 people are murdered in single victim incidents for every mass shooting death.
> Why do you dismiss THEM?
> Could it be that you have a need to be seen as compassionate? It's telling that your compassion only extends to the stories with lots of media attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.
> 
> The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur.  All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child.  *However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?
> 
> The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?
Click to expand...


That you don't know ... frankly I don't know how to respond.  I'd walk through hell to save those children; I'd take a tactical response to the other situation.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't realize it. It's just some notion that guns on a military base = guns in everyone's hands without realizing that unless they are actively issued for some purpose those guns are in an armory, locked up tighter than a nun's butthole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should just hand out daisies
Click to expand...


What was your MOS?  Oh, I guess your question answers that question.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, again, what you have to do repeal the 2nd amendment, because what you want consitutes infringment of my 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it falls short of that.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap.  Right?
> 
> But who knows with our whacky court system.  Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin.  He got like 20 years.  Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less...  sheesh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.
> 
> If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?
> 
> Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?
Click to expand...


Examples? 

What jurisdiction is taxing firearms to the extent no one can afford to buy one? And what court has ruled taxing firearms is un-Constitutional? 

And comparing self-defense rights with privacy rights is idiocy, theyre two completely different legal principles governed by two completely different criteria as to what constitutes infringement and what does not.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are not up for popular vote, we've been through this before asshole.
Click to expand...


Guy, you need to look up, Japanese-Americans, 1942.  

Rights are TOTALLY up to popular opinion.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> You do realize that only MP's and private security personnel are armed on domestic bases, thanks to Bill Clinton, do you not?



Well, no, soldiers are allowed to have personally owned weapons in their Quarters.  

But the places where people were working- yeah, that was the case before Clinton got there.


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns. 

Neither do 94% of the population...


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Seriously, when will you ever back your shit up Joe? Most of what you just said is unsubstantiated.  Other than your glittering resume, you are a liar, you do a disservice to all men and women in the military with your attitude. This young punk knows more about his world than you do in half the time you've lived. That is absolutely pathetic for someone such as you.



I served AMERICA. Not Exxon. Not IBM. Not Honeywell or GM or any other big corporation that has no more loyalty to this country other than what tax breaks they can get out of it. 



TemplarKormac said:


> [
> I'm 25, I've been in and out of three jobs since my 18th birthday, due to the economic collapse, I've suffered bouts of debilitating almost suicidal depressive states as a result. I live in a family rich in military history. Firstly, I had an Uncle who served in the Hell On Wheels battalion during World War II, another who was captured by the Germans. My grandfather was a military contractor in San Antonio, Texas who built various types of military equipment for various branches of the Military, my second grandfather served two tours in Vietnam, I had a great uncle who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima, my father served in the First Gulf War in Iraq and Kuwait. And one of my brothers just finished a tour in Afghanistan.




So why didn't you enlist?  I mean, I'm happy you have so many folks in your family who served, but frankly, what have you done?  And since you can't seem to hold down a job anyway, the military might be a good place for you. They'd still take you at 25. 



TemplarKormac said:


> [
> It's funny that you would criticize me for living off of others when you advocate people living off the government dole. Surprise Joe! I don't. When I was unfairly fired from my first job in 2006, I didn't apply for unemployment. In 2010, I could have still done so, but I didn't. In 2012 I managed not to either, and I still won't. It serves me no purpose to further indebt my government by being yet another suckling on the government teet.



Without breaking rules and speculating about your family, somehow, I don't think you are out there obediently starving. Someone is taking care of you.  It's EXACTLY the oppossite of the Ayn Randian heroism you advocate.  

One of the three jobs I have is writing resumes for people.  I see the folks who are really trying to get by in a bad economy.  It isn't sitting on the computer all day whining about "them welfare people".  

Incidently, I think it is absolutely horrible that we have so many people living off the dole right now.  But that's the world the big corporations you worship want.  They had full employment under Clinton and they hated it. 




> If you think paying someone 15 bucks an hour for flipping a burger is a "fair wage" those 51 years of life have failed to teach you anything meaningful. Heck, I was happy to earn $5.15 an hour. It was fair for the job I did.



Then why not 2.00 an hour.  Why not just work for whatever they weren't going to throw in the garbage?  




> However, you never really did answer my argument did you? All you did was rail against rich people, call me a punk, you still never connected the dots between how rich people make other people poor and oh wait, you still never made your case for total gun control.



Um, actually, I did.  Many times.  Most of you don't need guns.  



> You're the one who needs to quit running his mouth. You are naive and foolish. You have no insight into this world whatsoever. If you think you've been through hell, guess again.



Guy, both of my parents died when I was 19.  That's Hell.  Everything else has been a challenge, but challenges are meant to be overcome.


----------



## TemplarKormac

[MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]:


----------



## JoeB131

Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face. 

Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.


----------



## Chris

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.

So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.


----------



## JoeB131

Rottweiler said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would be nice if those BILLIONS the rich are hoarding were used to create jobs, but the rich have spent 30 years dismantling the middle class.
> 
> And those poor people just refuse to obediently starve to death so that Mitt Romney has a place to ride his Dressage Horsie.
> 
> 
> 
> What possible reason would the rich have for "dismantling the middle class"?
> Poor people have no money to buy their goods and services. Poor people are a drain on their wealth in the form of taxation.
> It makes sense for rich people to have as many other rich people as possible so all can get richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You morons are applying reason the greedy.  

I mean, shit, the whole fucking planet is dying because they don't want to do anything about Global Warming that might cut into their profits.  

They figure someone else will print money to take care of the poor or they'll issue food stamps, or whatever else happens, as long as they get more of the wealth.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.
> 
> Neither do 94% of the population...
Click to expand...


Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.
> 
> Neither do 94% of the population...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."
Click to expand...


No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.


----------



## martybegan

Chris said:


> If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.
> 
> So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.



Same tired studies being used by the same (actually different) tired troll. 

Go suck JoeDouches balls.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.
> 
> Neither do 94% of the population...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.
Click to expand...


Like we have a choice.


----------



## JoeNormal

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle.  Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow.  Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.

Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.

Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.


----------



## candycorn

QuickHitCurepon said:


> The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.
> 
> Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.
> 
> Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.



I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "I suppose" you ..., not that you personally do.
> 
> The rest of your post expresses merit for some form of gun control, but in context it is a non sequitur.  All gun violence which kills or maims an innocent person is an act of evil, be the victim the single casualty or not; be the victim an adult or a child.  *However, the killing of 20 six year olds in their classroom stands out as unique and noteworthy on the field of carnage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What makes those 20 kids more special than the 40 adults that were killed the next day in the US?
> 
> The death of 20 6 year olds tugs at the heart strings, but how exactly does that make them ammunition for liberal agenda while the 40 shop keepers, mothers, fathers, police officers and drug dealers that also died that day, are largely overlooked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you don't know ... frankly I don't know how to respond.  *I'd walk through hell to save those children*; I'd take a tactical response to the other situation.
Click to expand...


Bullshit! You'd walk on their bodies to achieve your agenda.

How many homicides in the US in 2012? And for you, it's all about 20 kids?

That's fucked up.


----------



## Ernie S.

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it falls short of that.  Nothing in the 2nd amendment says the guns have to be cheap.  Right?
> 
> But who knows with our whacky court system.  Back when I lived in Texas, someone poisoned a tree in Austin.  He got like 20 years.  Crimes that happened the same evening against humans were prosecuted with the perps getting much less...  sheesh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone cannot afford to exercise a right because you intentionally make it to expensive to exercise said right, that is infringement.
> 
> If you go with that logic, can we tax abortions so much that they become too expensive for them to occur?
> 
> Also, by making guns expensive, you basically say rich people can defend themselves, but poor people cannot. Why do you hate poor people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples?
> 
> What jurisdiction is taxing firearms to the extent no one can afford to buy one? And what court has ruled taxing firearms is un-Constitutional?
> 
> And comparing self-defense rights with privacy rights is idiocy, theyre two completely different legal principles governed by two completely different criteria as to what constitutes infringement and what does not.
Click to expand...


Show me where in the Constitution it says your right to privacy "shall not be infringed".


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.
> 
> Neither do 94% of the population...
Click to expand...

94%???? Where did you come up with that #? From rdweeb's ass?


----------



## KGB

candycorn said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.
> 
> Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.
> 
> Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.
Click to expand...


this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> *Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face. *
> 
> Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.



Guess again, Joe. From where I sit, the kid has *humiliated* you. I suppose you could start a poll and ask your peers....


----------



## Spoonman

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.
> 
> Neither do 94% of the population...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.
Click to expand...


how do you identify them if they've never been caught


----------



## Spoonman

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden".  Everyone knew they caused cancer.
> 
> BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
> 
> Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers.  Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
> 
> Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
> 
> If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
> 
> Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an overt intrusion to keep crazy people and criminals from buying guns.
> 
> Neither do 94% of the population...
Click to expand...


would this be the same 94% you claimed supported background checks? but when the bill came before congress, congress after hearing from the people, found out the majority of the people were saying NO!


----------



## Spoonman

Chris said:


> If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.
> 
> So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.



well except for the fact that liberal myth has been debunked over and over and gun owners are on the rise.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks disarming a military base is retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They should just hand out daisies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was your MOS?  Oh, I guess your question answers that question.
Click to expand...


If you're implying you were in the military, your MOS was making sure hundreds of people's potatoes didn't have skins on them.


----------



## jon_berzerk

the naval ship yard killings proved yet another 

myth in the liberal anti gun agenda 

this time 

the universal back ground check

the shooter bought a used shotgun 

so instead of 

private seller (no background check) to private buyer 

private seller firearm went to FFL (needs background check) to private buyer shooter


----------



## candycorn

KGB said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY way to PREVENT CRIMINALS from having guns would be for the National Guard to go door-to-door Baghdad-style. That would work somewhat for a short while, although thousands of the guns would be well hidden.
> 
> Crooks are going to be enraged, not having guns, and undoubtedly, they will dramatically increase ties with organized crime, gangs and foreign cartels. The mob will explode in size.
> 
> Unless, you want a all-pervasive police state. That'll work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.  

It could happen to any responsible gun owner. 

Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
Click to expand...


So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...
Click to expand...


I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.  

Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.  

Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No


----------



## Edgetho

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
Click to expand...


Most people already have Insurance.  Most Homeowners, Condo and Renters policies have a 'Comprehensive General Liability' coverage in them.

And yes, victims have recovered under them.

What you want is confiscation.  What you're doing is constructing a road-block to gun ownership.

LEGAL ownership.

I'm sure that all the illegal gun owners and all the illegally-used gun-wielding idiots in this world will run out and buy your stupid Insurance the mintue you get your idiotic law passed.

BTW, after 25 years in the business, I've never seen a policy yet that covered  intentionally illegal acts of the insured.

Good luck finding an Insurance Company that will cover someone taking their gun down to the local Middle School and shooting the place up.

I don't know what redeeming values you possess, but your feeble thought processes are certainly not among them......  If any exist at all.

I should charge for this shit


----------



## jon_berzerk

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
Click to expand...


*Hence liability insurance is needed*

right anyone who maintains a gun free zone should be required to carry liability insurance


----------



## candycorn

Edgetho said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck finding an Insurance Company that will cover someone taking their gun down to the local Middle School and shooting the place up.
Click to expand...


Did the guy that pulled the trigger at Sandy Hook own the gun?


----------



## Ernie S.

This liability insurance thing is bullshit. You are trying to assign liability to deep pockets, as if money will unshoot a kid.
I have, let's just say, "many" guns here. 2 of them are always loaded, one in plain site, unless unfamiliar children are around, or there is going to be a LOT of alcohol consumed.
So, when I leave the house and someone breaks in and steals a rifle and later uses it to kill, you want to shift blame to me?
How exactly would I be responsible for a break-in and theft of my own property? And how, pray tell, can I be held responsible for a murder beyond my control?


----------



## Edgetho

candycorn said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck finding an Insurance Company that will cover someone taking their gun down to the local Middle School and shooting the place up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the guy that pulled the trigger at Sandy Hook own the gun?
Click to expand...


No, and if you can find negligence of the Insured under her Homeowners policy, you can collect.

Last I checked, she was negligently dead.

Again, with the lack of redeeming qualities.


----------



## Edgetho

Ernie S. said:


> This liability insurance thing is bullshit. You are trying to assign liability to deep pockets, as if money will unshoot a kid.
> I have, let's just say, "many" guns here. 2 of them are always loaded, one in plain site, unless unfamiliar children are around, or there is going to be a LOT of alcohol consumed.
> So, when I leave the house and someone breaks in and steals a rifle and later uses it to kill, you want to shift blame to me?
> How exactly would I be responsible for a break-in and theft of my own property? And how, pray tell, can I be held responsible for a murder beyond my control?



They'd have to find negligence on your part.

If you lend the gun to somebody, you could, and probably would, be held negligent.  Civil negligence, not criminal negligence.  Civil.  

They can, and would, sue you and probably win.

If someone steals your gun and commits a crime, you can not, by commission or omission, be held negligent unless you didn't take reasonable means to secure it.

Same as if someone steals your car and drives it into a Bus Stop full of children.  You are not negligent unless you can be found to have committed or omitted reasonable means to secure you car.....  Like take the keys out of it.

dimocraps are just stupid.  

Mostly because they refuse to listen to their betters....  People like us.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
Click to expand...


I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.



candycorn said:


> Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.


Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.



candycorn said:


> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No



Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.


----------



## Edgetho

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?

Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?

Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?

Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?

And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.

dimocraps lie.  About everything.

Everything.

They want confiscation.  Just that simple


----------



## kaz

Edgetho said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.
> 
> 
> Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?
> 
> Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?
> 
> Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?
> 
> Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?
> 
> And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.
> 
> dimocraps lie.  About everything.
> 
> Everything.
> 
> They want confiscation.  Just that simple
Click to expand...


Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with the sentiment that we need to stringently enforce the current gun laws. I'd make laws that if you commit a crime using a gun (you don't need to fire it but if you brandish the weapon) you're going to Federal prison for 10 years; minimum.  No parole, no time off; you're gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
Click to expand...


Again i think your mistaken about what liability insurance covers. Your auto liability policy isn't going to fork over any money if you intentionally decide to run someone over. Why should they? They shouldn't have to pay for your malicious actions any more than the victims.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the exact position those of us who are true believers in the 2nd Amendment have been stating for years.  Enforce the existing laws instead of making new & useless ordinances that violate existing rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again i think your mistaken about what liability insurance covers. Your auto libability policy isn't going to fork over any money if you intentionally decide to run someone over. Why should they? They shouldn't have to pay for your malicious actions any more than the victims.
Click to expand...


She's advocating a system where to offer liability insurance, you'd have to meet government regulations, ala Obamacare, not free market regulations where of course you are right.  Which means of course that would drive up the cost of the insurance for honest gun owners, so they are paying for actually intentional misdeeds.  It's another indirect tax on guns.  And of course criminals wouldn't get a gun and not buy insurance and shoot someone, that would just be wrong and criminals don't do things that are wrong.

Basically with leftists like Candy you have to think of what they are saying as, if everyone followed this law, would it work?  If the answer is yes and it meets a leftist objective, then that's what they want.  When it doesn't work, that's because of the Republicans.


----------



## Bern80

kaz said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, though I don't think you grasp the implication of the insurance part of that.
> 
> 
> Of course you're wrong, you almost always are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?
> 
> Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?
> 
> Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?
> 
> Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?
> 
> And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.
> 
> dimocraps lie.  About everything.
> 
> Everything.
> 
> They want confiscation.  Just that simple
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
Click to expand...


The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happen, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


Please explain where the compensation should come from.  Mom is dead.  Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case.  The perp is dead too.

Your move.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't the State of Connecticut be held liable for these shootings?
> 
> Isn't it their duty to protect their Citizens?
> 
> Why isn't the Town Sheriff or Chief of Police being held in Jail until he can be brought to answer for his incompetence and stupdity?
> 
> Why is it always that dimocrap scum want to punish people who had NOTHING TO DO with the shootings in Newtown or anywhere else?
> 
> And you are taking one helluva chance promising to explain something to a dimocrap if they tell you they'll listen.
> 
> dimocraps lie.  About everything.
> 
> Everything.
> 
> They want confiscation.  Just that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
Click to expand...


Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.  

Guns are different exactly how?


----------



## Steven_R

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain where the compensation should come from.  Mom is dead.  Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case.  The perp is dead too.
> 
> Your move.
Click to expand...


Why does there need to be compensation in the first place? It's unfortunate, but just because shit happens doesn't mean someone need to open a checkbook.

If someone steals a car and kills 30 kindergarteners with a Buick, why does anyone need to cough up money?


----------



## Steven_R

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
Click to expand...


Auto insurance is only required on government owned roads, not to just own a car.


----------



## JoeNormal

JoeNormal said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle.  Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow.  Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.
Click to expand...


Bump


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain where the compensation should come from.  Mom is dead.  Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case.  The perp is dead too.
> 
> Your move.
Click to expand...


Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.  

But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up?  What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke?  Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?  

Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
Click to expand...


Let's require liability insurance for cinder blocks.  They can hurt someone too.

But the answer to your question is that the difference is that you hate guns and don't hate cars.


----------



## kaz

JoeNormal said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle.  Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow.  Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bump
Click to expand...


Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.


----------



## JoeNormal

kaz said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the number of guns in this country, I think the genie is already out of the bottle.  Instead of trying to control them, why don't we go with the flow.  Let's encourage would be shooters to go to Wall Street or K Street instead of the local theater or schoolyard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.
Click to expand...


More like it hit a little too close to home.


----------



## kaz

JoeNormal said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like it hit a little too close to home.
Click to expand...


That's true, I spent the majority of my life in the New York and DC areas.  How'd you know that?


----------



## JoeNormal

kaz said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody addressed it because it had nothing to do with anything, it was just an obnoxious comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like it hit a little too close to home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, I spent the majority of my life in the New York and DC areas.  How'd you know that?
Click to expand...


Lucky guess I suppose.  Not that many people sympathize with Wall Street or K Street.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
Click to expand...


Most guns aren't involved in accidents either. Most aren't even used in violent crimes.  



candycorn said:


> Guns are different exactly how?



They're not. It's the circumstances that are different. A few pages back I responded to you explaining this, but you may have missed it. You're saying people should carry liability insureance for guns like cars. I believe you said you wanted this in case the insured went and shot a bunch of people up with their gun, the victims could get money from the gun owner's insurance, right? That's a different scenario than the circumstances under which liability insurance kicks in on your car. There is a difference between being at fault for an act and intentionally commiting an act. Your liability insurance on your car kicked in because you were at fault in your accident, but just because you were at fault doesn't mean you intended to cause the accident. Taking a life has the same legal distinction where we have murder vs. manslaughter. Murder requires intent where manslaughter is usually about accidental negligence. Had you had intent to hurt someone with your vehicle like the person with the gun in your hypothetical, your liability insurance would have nothing to do with that. The only thing that would probably happen would be you getting dropped from your plan. Your auto liability doesn't pay out to the victim or victim's family if you intentionally run someone over. Compensation in that instance would be handled by the courts. This is why your liability insurance idea won't work, again, because that's not what liability insurance covers.


----------



## Edgetho

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
Click to expand...


They're not a lot different.

But you're confusing Civil Liability with criminal liability.

In a Car Crash, you are negligent if you are deemed to be more than 50% at fault.  It's called comparative negligence.

In a gun shooting, odds are pretty good that someone broke the law.

If it's in a "Castle Doctrine" case and the Homeowner didn't break the law but negligently shot someone, he can be sued and damages collected.

If he broke the law and illegally shot someone....

He can be successfully sued, but his Insurance Company usually won't defend him and usually won't pay damages.  Not in my State.  He can spend a LONG time in Jail, but that's about it.

There are ALWAYS exceptions to these guidelines, but generally speaking, I'm right.  Such as if it's a Joint Policy and the Husband shoots somebody and the victim plans on taking everything they own, the Insurance Company *may* decide to defend the Wife's interests in the Policy Coverages and try to reach a financial settlement

But that's above my pay grade.  

I am a retired, 25 year, Property and Casualty Agent.  I have schooled Attorneys on Legal Liability on a couple of occasions (though I wouldn't pretend to know more than ANY Attorney on the General Subject).

I know what I'm talking about.  

Frankly, you don't

Listen, pay attention, learn.  It's the best thing you can do for yourself right now.


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't referred to as "crazy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like we have a choice.
Click to expand...


Sure we do.  

To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check.  You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one.  And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face. *
> 
> Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess again, Joe. From where I sit, the kid has *humiliated* you. I suppose you could start a poll and ask your peers....
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you're like a crazy person, so your opinions don't count.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like we have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check.  You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one.  And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.
Click to expand...


We already do go through background checks. What next? TSA style pat downs?


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face.
> 
> Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.



No. I'm too scary for you. You make a habit of ignoring reality, you spew your version of it constantly without fail. I take you down each and every time.


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
Click to expand...


Damned if I can find "The right of the People to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed." in my copy of the Constitution. Would you be so kind as to point out where I could locate it? I will highlight it in yellow marker for future reference.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but we probably shouldn't sell them guns, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like we have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check.  You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one.  And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.
Click to expand...


You could certainly interpret it so. However, that's not what I was talking about.

Unless, nearly all guns are confiscated, nothing will change. Nothing short of a full-blown police state will work.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is that simple.  As our clueless friend asks should the victims be compensated, she doesn't assign who should compensate them.  Insurance money of course appears out of nowhere in her simple mind.  Actually, that would be again honest gun owners being assigned the liability of paying for criminals.  The shooter is liable.  Not the government or insurance companies.   And if someone wants to insure themselves, they can do that too.  But just putting another direct or indirect tax on honest citizens is no fair answer.  This is all completely above her head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
Click to expand...


Using cars as an example is like comparing apples and *oranges.*


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Guy, totally trashed your hiney, I'm surprised you had the nerve to show your face. *
> 
> Maybe you need to get back to your video game. Reality is much too scary for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess again, Joe. From where I sit, the kid has *humiliated* you. I suppose you could start a poll and ask your peers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you're like a crazy person, so your opinions don't count.
Click to expand...



You could poll that too. I'm thinking you would be disappointed by the results.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Spoonman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.
> 
> So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well except for the fact that liberal myth has been debunked over and over and gun owners are on the rise.
Click to expand...


Who is stupid enough not to know that owning a gun doesn't entail risks?


----------



## RKMBrown

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of gun violence. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or depressed teenager to kill themselves or others, than it is to be used for self defense.
> 
> So gun owners are gradually being eliminated from the gene pool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well except for the fact that liberal myth has been debunked over and over and gun owners are on the rise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is stupid enough not to know that owning a gun doesn't entail risks?
Click to expand...


Owning a pencil entails risks.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's fine but a sometimes you get a Sandyhook situation where a law abiding citizen has their gun taken and you have carnage.
> 
> It could happen to any responsible gun owner.
> 
> Hence liability insurance is needed; while it's great (if you want to call it that) that the shooter is in prison or dead; something needs to be built into the system to account for the carnage left in the wake.  Since you can't bring back someone who is dead or repair (totally) the wounds in some cases; money is all that there is sadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
> 
> Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
Click to expand...


Should the owner of a chain saw be responsible for everything done with it?


----------



## TemplarKormac

RKMBrown said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well except for the fact that liberal myth has been debunked over and over and gun owners are on the rise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stupid enough not to know that owning a gun doesn't entail risks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Owning a pencil entails risks.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the guys writing our laws. Pens are dangerous weapons too!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stupid enough not to know that owning a gun doesn't entail risks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Owning a pencil entails risks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guys writing our laws. Pens are dangerous weapons too!
Click to expand...


 The pen is mightier than the sword.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like we have a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check.  You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one.  And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already do go through background checks. What next? TSA style pat downs?
Click to expand...


Background checks that let Aaron Alexis, Cho Hueng and Joker Holmes buy guns are about as inadequate as using fish-net panty-hose as a shark cage.  

Incidently, the Germans have already figured this one out.  They already do this with their gun owners, (They have about 17 million guns for 80 million Germans).  But because they very strictly control who can buy a gun, they have almost NO shooting incidents.


----------



## RKMBrown

QuickHitCurepon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
> 
> Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should the owner of a chain saw be responsible for everything done with it?
Click to expand...


Depends.

Lets say it's an electric and the owner has disabled any safety features.  Let's he leaves it unattended and plugged in with a group of kindergarteners. 

Yes, I'd say you are responsible for accidents that occur on / with your property that should have been avoided.  

As another example, your pit bull kills the neighbors kid. 

Still another example, you leave the gate open and the neighbor's kid drowns in your pool.


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a liberal is suggesting we don't know how to solve a problem, so let's throw money at it.  Of course you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
> 
> Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should the owner of a chain saw be responsible for everything done with it?
Click to expand...


If they knowingly sold it to Leatherface, yes.  






If they knowing sold it to Nancy Lanza, who was obviously nuts, and she dragged her kid along, and he was obviously even more nuts, then, yeah, they are liable.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Steven_R said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where the compensation should come from.  Mom is dead.  Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case.  The perp is dead too.
> 
> Your move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does there need to be compensation in the first place? It's unfortunate, but just because shit happens doesn't mean someone need to open a checkbook.
> 
> If someone steals a car and kills 30 kindergarteners with a Buick, why does anyone need to cough up money?
Click to expand...


Right. Who wants to worry about this shit?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think the gun owner should be responsible for what their weapon does; the same way a car owner is responsible if you damage someone else's car.
> 
> Disagree that the injured should be compensated?  Of course you do.
> 
> Were the victims of Sandy Hook due any compensation?  Yes or No
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the owner of a chain saw be responsible for everything done with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they knowingly sold it to Leatherface, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they knowing sold it to Nancy Lanza, who was obviously nuts, and she dragged her kid along, and he was obviously even more nuts, then, yeah, they are liable.
Click to expand...


That's one HELL of a stretch there, son.


----------



## Ernie S.

QuickHitCurepon said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owning a pencil entails risks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guys writing our laws. Pens are dangerous weapons too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pen is mightier than the sword.
Click to expand...


Depends on who is handling the sword.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> To get a gun, you have to go through a THOROUGH background check.  You have to buy VERY expensive insurance to keep one.  And if the gun seller took a shortcut, we sue his ass into oblivion when his gun is used in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already do go through background checks. What next? TSA style pat downs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Background checks that let Aaron Alexis, Cho Hueng and Joker Holmes buy guns are about as inadequate as using fish-net panty-hose as a shark cage.
> 
> Incidently, the Germans have already figured this one out.  They already do this with their gun owners, (They have about 17 million guns for 80 million Germans).  But because they very strictly control who can buy a gun, they have almost NO shooting incidents.
Click to expand...


Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?

I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.


----------



## Ernie S.

They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Ernie S. said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the guys writing our laws. Pens are dangerous weapons too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pen is mightier than the sword.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on who is handling the sword.
Click to expand...


Not really. Ideas have always been tossed around the same as file sharing.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?
> 
> I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.



No criminal record. 
Honorably discharged Army Veteran
Hold down a good paying job.  

Yeah, I probably could.  

But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.  

Holmes was being thrown out of the university. 

Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.  

Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior. 

IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.  

The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.  

If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  

If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.


----------



## MarcATL

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.
> 
> The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.



The majority of gun deaths are 

Suicides
Accidents
Murder by acquaintance.  

Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.


----------



## MarcATL

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.
> 
> The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of gun deaths are
> 
> Suicides
> Accidents
> Murder by acquaintance.
> 
> *Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.*
Click to expand...

Not in the minds of the far RW radical gun nutters.


----------



## RKMBrown

MarcATL said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html
Click to expand...


Licenses, fees, taxes, mandated insurance.  Yeah those will and have been the way libtards restrict our rights for everything.  Not rocket science and not worthy of creating your own thread and poaching from this one.  You already have homeowner's insurance, and corporations and other entities already have insurance to cover use of guns and gun accidents.


----------



## RKMBrown

MarcATL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.
> 
> The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of gun deaths are
> 
> Suicides
> Accidents
> Murder by acquaintance.
> 
> *Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in the minds of the far RW radical gun nutters.
Click to expand...

Still proving yourself to be a partisan retard.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?
> 
> I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
Click to expand...


A far more effective solution would be to prohibit 1/8 of the US population from owning guns, right down to warrantless searches of homes vehicles and persons.

The problem is that would be just as unconstitutional as your solution. The difference is that it would cut the murder rate in half, while your solution would have saved 50 or 60 lives.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have ghettos full of drug dealers shooting one another either.
> 
> The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of gun deaths are
> 
> Suicides
> Accidents
> Murder by acquaintance.
> 
> Murder by stranger is actually sort of rare.
Click to expand...


When they call murder by rival gang members murder by an aquaintance, it skews your numbers all to hell.
You are not going to cut down on suicides significantly by getting rid of guns. Guns only make suicide more efficient.
It also could be argued that there is essentially no such thing as a gun accident. Sure, careless owners accidentally discharge a weapon or leave weapons where kids can get at them, but guns don't go off by themselves.
The only time I've ever seen a gun go off without the trigger being pulled was in a house fire. That pretty much sucked but I did manage to retrieve and repair the 1911 and I carried it for a number of years


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?
> 
> I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
Click to expand...


Make the officials that FAILED to do their jobs in reporting the individuals pay. We already have laws on the books preventing such people from owning firearms.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?
> 
> I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
Click to expand...


You sound like a broken record.


----------



## Toro

dp


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> A far more effective solution would be to prohibit 1/8 of the US population from owning guns, right down to warrantless searches of homes vehicles and persons.
> 
> The problem is that would be just as unconstitutional as your solution. The difference is that it would cut the murder rate in half, while your solution would have saved 50 or 60 lives.



I wonder which "1/8"th your talking about...  

Never mind, I'm pretty sure I don't want to know, and I'll just go back to ignoring your racist ass.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> Make the officials that FAILED to do their jobs in reporting the individuals pay. We already have laws on the books preventing such people from owning firearms.



Laws that the gun manufacturers make sure aren't enforced and the gun sellers ignore.  

Incidently, I agree, there should be a stricter reporting system of flagging the mentally ill and that HIPA shouldn't apply.  

BUt again, the gun industry has no interest in keeping these weapons out of the wrong hands.  IN fact, they have EVERY interest in keeping them there.  

As long as Criminals and the mentally ill have them, so will a lot of other fools who really think they can have protection when one of them sets it off around them. 

Think of it like selling weapons to both sides in a war.


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?
> 
> I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> *If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  *
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
Click to expand...


And there you have it, folks.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.

They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......

But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre -- 

dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values

They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional


----------



## JoeB131

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Had any of those 3 been declared insane by the court?
> 
> I suppose even you could pass a background check, Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> *If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  *
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it, folks.
> 
> Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
> 
> They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
> 
> But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
> 
> dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
> 
> They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
Click to expand...


Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership. 

And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values. 

The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.


----------



## editec

> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?



When someone is found to be a vilent criminal? Chp off their hands.

Next Question?  

How will society cope with the now huge number of nasty people without any hands?


----------



## kaz

Edgetho said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not a lot different.
> 
> But you're confusing Civil Liability with criminal liability.
> 
> In a Car Crash, you are negligent if you are deemed to be more than 50% at fault.  It's called comparative negligence.
> 
> In a gun shooting, odds are pretty good that someone broke the law.
> 
> If it's in a "Castle Doctrine" case and the Homeowner didn't break the law but negligently shot someone, he can be sued and damages collected.
> 
> If he broke the law and illegally shot someone....
> 
> He can be successfully sued, but his Insurance Company usually won't defend him and usually won't pay damages.  Not in my State.  He can spend a LONG time in Jail, but that's about it.
> 
> There are ALWAYS exceptions to these guidelines, but generally speaking, I'm right.  Such as if it's a Joint Policy and the Husband shoots somebody and the victim plans on taking everything they own, the Insurance Company *may* decide to defend the Wife's interests in the Policy Coverages and try to reach a financial settlement
> 
> But that's above my pay grade.
> 
> I am a retired, 25 year, Property and Casualty Agent.  I have schooled Attorneys on Legal Liability on a couple of occasions (though I wouldn't pretend to know more than ANY Attorney on the General Subject).
> 
> I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Frankly, you don't
> 
> Listen, pay attention, learn.  It's the best thing you can do for yourself right now.
Click to expand...


What you said is completely reasonable and logical.  However, you're over thinking Candy's post.  It's hard not to.  But she is actually talking about liability insurance.

She's saying that anyone who is a victim needs to be compensated.  If anyone needs to be compensated and there is no one to do so, then it's the job of government to confiscate money from us at gunpoint and compensate them.

So, by requiring liability insurance, she's actually protecting us from having to compensate shooting victims.  In a twisted way, she's actually trying to save us money.  I know that the cost of the insurance also comes from us as well, so she didn't actually save us anything, but that's beyond her comprehension, as I said, you can't over think it.


----------



## kaz

MarcATL said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html
Click to expand...


I see.  No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun.  Genius, pure genius.  

And then when you still prevented anyone from shooting back and in typical liberal fashion maximized the carnage, it's cool because their families will get some bucks for your death.

You just can't make up what liberals actually believe.


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun.  Genius, pure genius.
Click to expand...


i still hold to the idea 

that those that maintain a gun free zone should be required to carry insurance 

after all they imply that we are save in such zones


----------



## RKMBrown

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-for-gun-law-is-so-simple-it-s-not-funny.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun.  Genius, pure genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i still hold to the idea
> 
> that those that maintain a gun free zone should be required to carry insurance
> 
> after all they imply that we are save in such zones
Click to expand...


Name one gun free zone that is uninsured.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But as with all of this, you still don't understand insurance and liability.  I'd be glad to explain it, but you're going to have to start caring about understanding discussions and addressing points before I am willing to go to the effort to explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where the compensation should come from.  Mom is dead.  Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case.  The perp is dead too.
> 
> Your move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
> 
> But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up?  What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke?  Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
> 
> Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
Click to expand...


 Please explain *where* the compensation should come from

Still your move.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue with candy is that she doesn't want guns regulated. She wants them gone, period. And she can't snap her fingers in make that happy, irrational solution it is, she's just throwing ridiculous regulations out there trying to discourage people from owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most guns aren't involved in accidents either. Most aren't even used in violent crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not. It's the circumstances that are different. A few pages back I responded to you explaining this, but you may have missed it. You're saying people should carry liability insureance for guns like cars. I believe you said you wanted this in case *the insured *went and shot a bunch of people up with their gun, the victims could get money from the gun owner's insurance, right? That's a different scenario than the circumstances under which liability insurance kicks in on your car. There is a difference between being at fault for an act and intentionally commiting an act. Your liability insurance on your car kicked in because you were at fault in your accident, but just because you were at fault doesn't mean you intended to cause the accident. Taking a life has the same legal distinction where we have murder vs. manslaughter. Murder requires intent where manslaughter is usually about accidental negligence. Had you had intent to hurt someone with your vehicle like the person with the gun in your hypothetical, your liability insurance would have nothing to do with that. The only thing that would probably happen would be you getting dropped from your plan. Your auto liability doesn't pay out to the victim or victim's family if you intentionally run someone over. Compensation in that instance would be handled by the courts. This is why your liability insurance idea won't work, again, because that's not what liability insurance covers.
Click to expand...


No...

If the insured's gun is used in a crime...yes as in Sandy Hook.  

The effect is a win-win.  The victims get some form of material compensation and the move retards gun ownership.


----------



## candycorn

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> *If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  *
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, folks.
> 
> Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
> 
> They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
> 
> But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
> 
> dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
> 
> They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
Click to expand...


In a nutshell; you're right.

What I always find amazing is that many are afraid of the government but want to spend more on defense...which is what they're afraid the government is going to use to assault them and their liberties.

As I said about 100 times; obviously the European countries are doing something very right and we're doing something very wrong.  

The only major difference is that we have a 2nd Amendment written prior to the invention of the zipper and these other nations do not.  That and we have "elements" in our country I'm told; whatever that means.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where the compensation should come from.  Mom is dead.  Dad is gone in the Sandyhook case.  The perp is dead too.
> 
> Your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
> 
> But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up?  What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke?  Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
> 
> Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain *where* the compensation should come from
> 
> Still your move.
Click to expand...


1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.

2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?

Still your move.


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  No criminal would ever think of not buying insurance when they buy a gun.  Genius, pure genius.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i still hold to the idea
> 
> that those that maintain a gun free zone should be required to carry insurance
> 
> after all they imply that we are save in such zones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one gun free zone that is uninsured.
Click to expand...


then it shouldnt be a problem when they get sued


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
> 
> But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up?  What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke?  Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
> 
> Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain *where* the compensation should come from
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
Click to expand...

Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated).  Now what?

If John used *your* gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.




kaz said:


> 2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?


Good point.  As soon as we pass an amendment that permits people to have bombs; I'll worry about the bombings.  

Is that really an issue for you...mass bombings?  A bombing spree?  

In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question.  Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain *where* the compensation should come from
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated).  Now what?
> 
> If John used *your* gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
Click to expand...

That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.



candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.  As soon as we pass an amendment that permits people to have bombs; I'll worry about the bombings.
> 
> Is that really an issue for you...mass bombings?  A bombing spree?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the discussion.



candycorn said:


> In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question.  Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.



Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated).  Now what?
> 
> If John used *your* gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.  As soon as we pass an amendment that permits people to have bombs; I'll worry about the bombings.
> 
> Is that really an issue for you...mass bombings?  A bombing spree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question.  Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
Click to expand...


So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.

Do I have your stance right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated).  Now what?
> 
> If John used *your* gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question.  Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
> 
> Do I have your stance right?
Click to expand...


Since when has insurance paid for criminal acts?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> *If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  *
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, folks.
> 
> Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
> 
> They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
> 
> But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
> 
> dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
> 
> They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
Click to expand...




If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated).  Now what?
> 
> If John used *your* gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question.  Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
> 
> Do I have your stance right?
Click to expand...


"Built in" makes it sound like the money is coming from nowhere.

If everyone has to buy insurance to have a gun, most criminals still aren't going to do that.  So innocent gun owners are paying victims for crimes they didn't commit.  If government does, taxpayers are paying for crimes they didn't commit.

My position is that if a criminal harms someone, then it isn't the job of society to go to someone uninvolved, confiscate their money and give it to them.  You in doing that are committing a second crime.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
> 
> Do I have your stance right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Built in" makes it sound like the money is coming from nowhere.
> 
> If everyone has to buy insurance to have a gun, most criminals still aren't going to do that.  So innocent gun owners are paying victims for crimes they didn't commit.  If government does, taxpayers are paying for crimes they didn't commit.
> 
> My position is that if a criminal harms someone, then it isn't the job of society to go to someone uninvolved, confiscate their money and give it to them.  You in doing that are committing a second crime.
Click to expand...


Okay.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
> 
> Do I have your stance right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when has insurance paid for criminal acts?
Click to expand...


Never.

I guess I shouldn't call it insurance; that seems to be a problem for you guys.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I addressed that point in the post you quoted, you just cut that part.
> 
> But in addition to that, suppose someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up?  What if someone stabs someone to death and they are broke?  Why arbitrarily punish gun owners?
> 
> Why don't we just require liability insurance to be an American citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain *where* the compensation should come from
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
> 
> 2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?
> 
> Still your move.
Click to expand...


Kaz, please read this link and in particular the germane parts of Chap. 1 & 2:


http://books.google.com/books?id=3U...age&q=attractive nuisance culpability&f=false

The shooter is not always responsible nor culpable.  Example:  6 year old who finds your loaded gun and accidently kills 4 year old sister.  Yeah, it happens.

If your home is burglarized, insurance pays for what you lose - in fact a third person pays for a criminal act of another.


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Click to expand...


Forget the tax and insurance.

Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of  money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money.  After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.

No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.

Simple.

Probably not.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain *where* the compensation should come from
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
> 
> 2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz, please read this link and in particular the germane parts of Chap. 1 & 2:
> 
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
> 
> The shooter is not always responsible nor culpable.  Example:  6 year old who finds your loaded gun and accidently kills 4 year old sister.  Yeah, it happens.
> 
> If your home is burglarized, insurance pays for what you lose - in fact a third person pays for a criminal act of another.
Click to expand...


This doesn't contradict anything I said.  In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves.  What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.  Steve can sue John, if John has any money.  Or Steve can insure himself.  But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.

As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable.  I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable.  My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget the tax and insurance.
> 
> Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of  money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money.  After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.
> 
> No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Probably not.
Click to expand...


So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the tax and insurance.
> 
> Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of  money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money.  After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.
> 
> No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?
Click to expand...


No.  Ford doesn't make weapons.  If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget the tax and insurance.
> 
> Make gun manufacturers put a large sum of  money aside for each weapon they produce and when/if the gun is used in a crime, the victims of the crime can claim the money.  After 15-20 years or so, the money is no longer tied to the weapon.
> 
> No 2nd amendment violation, no "insurance" problem.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Ford doesn't make weapons.  If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  You're on your own planet.  Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it.  Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.


----------



## kaz

If you want to defend yourself, you have to pay a tax for that.  As the Beatles said...

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if John killed Steve drunk driving in a Ford, should Ford be forced to pay Steve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Ford doesn't make weapons.  If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  You're on your own planet.  Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it.  Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
Click to expand...


The original question was how to keep guns from criminals.  Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.  

Making them cost-prohibitive would do that.  You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Ford doesn't make weapons.  If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  You're on your own planet.  Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it.  Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original question was how to keep guns from criminals.  Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
> 
> Making them cost-prohibitive would do that.  You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
Click to expand...


So you believe that criminals aren't clever enough to buy guns illegally and ... wait for it ... not pay the tax?  They're going to buy one of the millions of guns already in the US or smuggled in to avoid your taxes, and then say crap, I have to pay taxes on this now.  You know what, I'm passing on the gun...

Seriously, I don't see how your argument says any more than that.  Criminals by definition break the law.  You're just pursuing the current policy of targeting honest citizens, which hasn't worked and you've provided no argument as to why it suddenly will.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  You're on your own planet.  Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it.  Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original question was how to keep guns from criminals.  Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
> 
> Making them cost-prohibitive would do that.  You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that criminals aren't clever enough to buy guns illegally and ... wait for it ... not pay the tax?
Click to expand...

Sure...

The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up.  It's a long term proposition.  So what happens is that with any market; the consumers will have to look for alternatives or settle for a very sharp knife in this case.



kaz said:


> They're going to buy one of the millions of guns already in the US or smuggled in to avoid your taxes, and then say crap, I have to pay taxes on this now.  You know what, I'm passing on the gun...


Well, no matter what there will be people who look to subvert the rules be it in softball or weapons purchases.



kaz said:


> Seriously, I don't see how your argument says any more than that.  Criminals by definition break the law.  You're just pursuing the current policy of targeting honest citizens, which hasn't worked and you've provided no argument as to why it suddenly will.



Since this issue is your life, I'm sure you can enlighten me; was the guy who blew away 26 kids at Sandy Hook a career criminal?  Were Kleibold and Harris?  Did they have lengthy histories of criminal behavior?  Did the guy who shot up the Naval Annex earlier this month?  What about the guy who mowed down the kids at McDonalds about 20 years ago with, I believe, an AK47....did he have a lifelong past of breaking the law?  Did John Hinckley?  Did LHO?  

You make the gun pricey enough and maybe; _just maybe_, you avoid putting people in a position as to where they feel the need to kill someone, can skip lunch and use their Happy Meal money to buy a pistol.  

As I said, it's a long term solution but if you have an olympic sized pool and a 3 gallon bucket of water, eventually, you'll be able to empty the pool of all it's water.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
> 
> 2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz, please read this link and in particular the germane parts of Chap. 1 & 2:
> 
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
> 
> The shooter is not always responsible nor culpable.  Example:  6 year old who finds your loaded gun and accidently kills 4 year old sister.  Yeah, it happens.
> 
> If your home is burglarized, insurance pays for what you lose - in fact a third person pays for a criminal act of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't contradict anything I said.  In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves.  What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.  Steve can sue John, if John has any money.  Or Steve can insure himself.  But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
> 
> As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable.  I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable.  My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion, it's not the law.  See the link below and read about torts.  it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as _Reasonable care or attractive nuisance_

e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz, please read this link and in particular the germane parts of Chap. 1 & 2:
> 
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
> 
> The shooter is not always responsible nor culpable.  Example:  6 year old who finds your loaded gun and accidently kills 4 year old sister.  Yeah, it happens.
> 
> If your home is burglarized, insurance pays for what you lose - in fact a third person pays for a criminal act of another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't contradict anything I said.  In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves.  What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.  Steve can sue John, if John has any money.  Or Steve can insure himself.  But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
> 
> As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable.  I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable.  My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion, it's not the law.  See the link below and read about torts.  it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as _Reasonable care or attractive nuisance_
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
Click to expand...


This is such splitting hairs.  OK, I said they are "not" liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.  There are some scenarios where they could be.  I didn't think it was necessary to state that obvious point, I was talking about the general case where a gun is properly owned and cared for.  I stand corrected.  In that case, if someone breaks in, steals the gun and commits a crime, the owner is not liable.  However, there are things owners could to to make themselves liable.  Happy?  I see zero relevance to this and the discussion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original question was how to keep guns from criminals.  Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
> 
> Making them cost-prohibitive would do that.  You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that criminals aren't clever enough to buy guns illegally and ... wait for it ... not pay the tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure...
> 
> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up.  It's a long term proposition.  So what happens is that with any market; the consumers will have to look for alternatives or settle for a very sharp knife in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to buy one of the millions of guns already in the US or smuggled in to avoid your taxes, and then say crap, I have to pay taxes on this now.  You know what, I'm passing on the gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, no matter what there will be people who look to subvert the rules be it in softball or weapons purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I don't see how your argument says any more than that.  Criminals by definition break the law.  You're just pursuing the current policy of targeting honest citizens, which hasn't worked and you've provided no argument as to why it suddenly will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this issue is your life, I'm sure you can enlighten me; was the guy who blew away 26 kids at Sandy Hook a career criminal?  Were Kleibold and Harris?  Did they have lengthy histories of criminal behavior?  Did the guy who shot up the Naval Annex earlier this month?  What about the guy who mowed down the kids at McDonalds about 20 years ago with, I believe, an AK47....did he have a lifelong past of breaking the law?  Did John Hinckley?  Did LHO?
> 
> You make the gun pricey enough and maybe; _just maybe_, you avoid putting people in a position as to where they feel the need to kill someone, can skip lunch and use their Happy Meal money to buy a pistol.
> 
> As I said, it's a long term solution but if you have an olympic sized pool and a 3 gallon bucket of water, eventually, you'll be able to empty the pool of all it's water.
Click to expand...


The price remains pretty flat actually as the smuggling routes already exist and the people to do the leg work are already there.

Further what you would create is a nightmare for the national Guard as gangs went after Armories if the prices DID go up.

Further ignoring the whole "shall not infringe" part of the amendment, it would take decades to have any effect. And since gun manufacturers would find other revenue sources the manufacturers would be targets for thieves as well.

But back to the 2nd. It specifically says shall not infringe. What you propose most assuredly would be an infringement just as much as a special tax, special insurance or liability requirement for manufacturers as well as illegal as hell violating  the 14th Amendment as well as interstate and commercial laws.


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Click to expand...


I don't know if you are some kind of troll or just a high-functioning retard, but a system where we have 100K gun deaths and injuries are definitely BROKE.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't contradict anything I said.  In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves.  What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.  Steve can sue John, if John has any money.  Or Steve can insure himself.  But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
> 
> As for liability, I gave one example where they are liable.  I don't get the point in discussing every scenario they are liable.  My point was that they are not liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion, it's not the law.  See the link below and read about torts.  it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as _Reasonable care or attractive nuisance_
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is such splitting hairs.  OK, I said they are "not" liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.  There are some scenarios where they could be.  I didn't think it was necessary to state that obvious point, I was talking about the general case where a gun is properly owned and cared for.  I stand corrected.  In that case, if someone breaks in, steals the gun and commits a crime, the owner is not liable.  However, there are things owners could to to make themselves liable.  Happy?  I see zero relevance to this and the discussion.
Click to expand...


Of course you do.  I would expect nothing less from the willfully ignorant.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that criminals aren't clever enough to buy guns illegally and ... wait for it ... not pay the tax?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure...
> 
> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up.  It's a long term proposition.  So what happens is that with any market; the consumers will have to look for alternatives or settle for a very sharp knife in this case.
> 
> 
> Well, no matter what there will be people who look to subvert the rules be it in softball or weapons purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I don't see how your argument says any more than that.  Criminals by definition break the law.  You're just pursuing the current policy of targeting honest citizens, which hasn't worked and you've provided no argument as to why it suddenly will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this issue is your life, I'm sure you can enlighten me; was the guy who blew away 26 kids at Sandy Hook a career criminal?  Were Kleibold and Harris?  Did they have lengthy histories of criminal behavior?  Did the guy who shot up the Naval Annex earlier this month?  What about the guy who mowed down the kids at McDonalds about 20 years ago with, I believe, an AK47....did he have a lifelong past of breaking the law?  Did John Hinckley?  Did LHO?
> 
> You make the gun pricey enough and maybe; _just maybe_, you avoid putting people in a position as to where they feel the need to kill someone, can skip lunch and use their Happy Meal money to buy a pistol.
> 
> As I said, it's a long term solution but if you have an olympic sized pool and a 3 gallon bucket of water, eventually, you'll be able to empty the pool of all it's water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The price remains pretty flat actually as the smuggling routes already exist and the people to do the leg work are already there.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Further what you would create is a nightmare for the national Guard as gangs went after Armories if the prices DID go up.


So the crips are going to take on the National Guard.  I like the Guard's chances.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Further ignoring the whole "shall not infringe" part of the amendment, it would take decades to have any effect.


Not infringing on anything.



RetiredGySgt said:


> And since gun manufacturers would find other revenue sources the manufacturers would be targets for thieves as well.


Any chance the sky isn't going to fall if we raise the price of firearms?  




RetiredGySgt said:


> But back to the 2nd. It specifically says shall not infringe. What you propose most assuredly would be an infringement just as much as a special tax, special insurance or liability requirement for manufacturers as well as illegal as hell violating  the 14th Amendment as well as interstate and commercial laws.



There is no infringing...since guns are not free, that is an infringement I guess.  Remington is violating the constitution by  not giving them away using your logic.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion, it's not the law.  See the link below and read about torts.  it's not a lot of reading, short paragraphs defining terms in which you are not likely familiar of their legal meaning, such as _Reasonable care or attractive nuisance_
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is such splitting hairs.  OK, I said they are "not" liable if someone steals their gun and commits a crime.  There are some scenarios where they could be.  I didn't think it was necessary to state that obvious point, I was talking about the general case where a gun is properly owned and cared for.  I stand corrected.  In that case, if someone breaks in, steals the gun and commits a crime, the owner is not liable.  However, there are things owners could to to make themselves liable.  Happy?  I see zero relevance to this and the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  I would expect nothing less from the willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...


Explain the relevance to the discussion of your point.  I understand what you are saying just fine.  What I don't understand is why you are saying it here.

OK, if someone steals a gun, the owner may be liable under certain circumstances.  So related to this discussion, and...

If you want to start a thread discussing when an owner is liable, start a thread.  Don't hijack a thread where that discussion isn't relevant.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up



Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are some kind of troll or just a high-functioning retard, but a system where we have 100K gun deaths and injuries are definitely BROKE.
Click to expand...


What's broke is the culture of destruction, theft, greed, jealousy, drugs, and laziness the left insists on encouraging.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you are some kind of troll or just a high-functioning retard, but a system where we have 100K gun deaths and injuries are definitely BROKE.
Click to expand...


I don't know, but I know you are a horribly lost retard called Joe Blow.





Only a miserable troll as yourself would try to pretend laws that have worked for centuries are "broke" and need fixing.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> *If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  *
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, folks.
> 
> Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
> 
> They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
> 
> But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
> 
> dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
> 
> They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the theory of relativity? Every country is free to one extent or another. To try to pigeon hole countries is plain stupid.


----------



## TemplarKormac

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, folks.
> 
> Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
> 
> They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
> 
> But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
> 
> dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
> 
> They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand the theory of relativity? Every country is free to one extent or another. To try to pigeon hole countries is plain stupid.
Click to expand...


Theory of relativity, E equals MC squared. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. No object can travel faster than the speed of light.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

TemplarKormac said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand the theory of relativity? Every country is free to one extent or another. To try to pigeon hole countries is plain stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory of relativity, E equals MC squared. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. No object can travel faster than the speed of light.
Click to expand...


It doesn't apply only to light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...
Click to expand...


The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I still answered the question.  The shooter is responsible.  People can also insure themselves.  But if John shoots Steve, compensating Steve or his family isn't my responsibility.  Directly or indirectly by subsidizing insurance or through government.  Same answer I gave you before.
> 
> 2)  You didn't answer the question what if John blew up Steve instead of shooting him.  Who compensates Steve or his family then?
> 
> Still your move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz, please read this link and in particular the germane parts of Chap. 1 & 2:
> 
> 
> e-Study Guide for: Torts and Personal Injury Law by Cathy Okrent, ISBN ... - Cram101 Textbook Reviews - Google Books
> 
> The shooter is not always responsible nor culpable.  Example:  6 year old who finds your loaded gun and accidently kills 4 year old sister.  Yeah, it happens.
> 
> If your home is burglarized, insurance pays for what you lose - in fact a third person pays for a criminal act of another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't contradict anything I said.  In fact I specifically stated that people can insure themselves.  What I said was that if John shoots Steve, then I shouldn't have to pay for that.  Steve can sue John, if John has any money.  Or Steve can insure himself.  But third parties, such as innocent gun owners and taxpayers should not be forced to pay Steve.
Click to expand...

Well, duh.  There's no sound argument to show that anyone else is liable.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
Click to expand...


You know you that you cannot show this statement to be sound.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause no one ever buys illegal products made in south america, asia, europe...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price will go up and up and up though as the supply dries up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
Click to expand...


Why would the price of illegal gun ownership go up when they aren't paying the taxes and insurance?


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the price of illegal gun ownership go up when they aren't paying the taxes and insurance?
Click to expand...


Because the price of guns to the "non criminal" market is going to go up due to reduced production.  Higher prices means fewer buyers when there is elastic demand.  Guns are pretty much a luxury item and if the price goes up from $700 to $1,000, fewer buyers will mean fewer being made.  Thus you have a shortage.


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Ford doesn't make weapons.  If Ford made guns and John got drunk and killed Steve with a gun, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  You're on your own planet.  Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it.  Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original question was how to keep guns from criminals.  Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
> 
> Making them cost-prohibitive would do that.  You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
Click to expand...


that 200  + year old rule is the same document that applies to everyone of our freedoms.  are you suggesting they are all invalid now too?   and that rule was put in place by james Madison to give the people the ability to protect themselves, not only from enemies but also from their own government.  that rule is never more needed then today.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the price of illegal gun ownership go up when they aren't paying the taxes and insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the price of guns to the "non criminal" market is going to go up due to reduced production.  Higher prices means fewer buyers when there is elastic demand.  Guns are pretty much a luxury item and if the price goes up from $700 to $1,000, fewer buyers will mean fewer being made.  Thus you have a shortage.
Click to expand...


And then when drug dealers and gun runners recognize the price is going up, they'll start flooding the streets with foreign made guns and the price will go down again.  Which was the basic question in my op, when any high school kid can buy as much weed as they want, how are you going to keep guns out of criminals hands?

So then what do you do to get the prices to go up again, Kasparov?


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals too honest to buy an illegal gun and not pay the tax.  They would never think of that, they just wouldn't buy the gun.  I feel you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah cause no one ever buys illegal products made in south america, asia, europe...
Click to expand...


Sure they do.  

But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause no one ever buys illegal products made in south america, asia, europe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.
Click to expand...


That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The price of the illegal guns will go up too; silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the price of illegal gun ownership go up when they aren't paying the taxes and insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the price of guns to the "non criminal" market is going to go up due to reduced production.  Higher prices means fewer buyers when there is elastic demand.  Guns are pretty much a luxury item and if the price goes up from $700 to $1,000, fewer buyers will mean fewer being made.  Thus you have a shortage.
Click to expand...


guess again.   bought my HK-91 for $389 prior to Clintons assault weapons ban.  at the range about 9 months ago I was offered $4500 for it.   If I was even considering selling it I could have worked that initial offer up.  you can't out price guns.  they thought they could out price ammo.  it went up 5 times the going rate with Obama's push after sandy hook.  what happened. every available piece of ammo sold out. manufacturers ramped up production, added shifts and still they can not meet the demand.    when something becomes too expensive or too difficult to get by conventional means, what happens?  the black market.  they thought they could out price cigarettes. it reaches a threshold and now there is an market for the black market.  people don't care, they say fuck the government and their taxes and they buy black market.  more people are making their own ammo now too.  it's easy.


----------



## candycorn

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  You're on your own planet.  Since you have no consistency in your view, you just make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with anything, there's no point in addressing it.  Now if you come up with an actual standard you can defend, let us know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original question was how to keep guns from criminals.  Since we can't ban guns thanks to a 200+ y/o rule when the firing rate was what; one round every four minutes and it would take hours to kill 26 kids; the next best thing is to dry up the supply.
> 
> Making them cost-prohibitive would do that.  You guys didn't like the tax or the insurance so now requiring gun manufacturers to front the money for their product's deadly effects is the next best thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that 200  + year old rule is the same document that applies to everyone of our freedoms.  are you suggesting they are all invalid now too?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

I will submit to you, however, that not every idea derived at by any group is a good idea; much less a document written 200+ years ago is built to serve for all eternity.  

Who is your favorite musical group?  I like the Guess Who myself.  Do I like every one of their songs equally.  No.  I would submit that whomever your favorite band is that they have some music you'd rather not listen to.

As human beings it would seem as though we would be smart enough to recognize what isn't working and fix it.  We have what, 15,000 gun deaths a year?  Is that acceptable? I would say no.



Spoonman said:


> and that rule was put in place by james Madison to give the people the ability to protect themselves, not only from enemies but also from their own government.
> 
> that rule is never more needed then today.



Why do you think it's more needed today?  So you agree we should drastically reduce spending on our military since that is why you say you need the guns; right?


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause no one ever buys illegal products made in south america, asia, europe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
Click to expand...


How expensive do you think pot is?  How much is sold here each year?  You are blind if you think making something illegal runs the price up and/or slows the flow down.  All it does is screw over the people who manufacture here in the states and then screw over the people in the states that have to pay to keep freedom fighters in jail.


----------



## candycorn

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the price of illegal gun ownership go up when they aren't paying the taxes and insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the price of guns to the "non criminal" market is going to go up due to reduced production.  Higher prices means fewer buyers when there is elastic demand.  Guns are pretty much a luxury item and if the price goes up from $700 to $1,000, fewer buyers will mean fewer being made.  Thus you have a shortage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guess again.   bought my HK-91 for $389 prior to Clintons assault weapons ban.  at the range about 9 months ago I was offered $4500 for it.   If I was even considering selling it I could have worked that initial offer up.  you can't out price guns.  they thought they could out price ammo.  it went up 5 times the going rate with Obama's push after sandy hook.  what happened. every available piece of ammo sold out. manufacturers ramped up production, added shifts and still they can not meet the demand.    when something becomes too expensive or too difficult to get by conventional means, what happens?  the black market.  they thought they could out price cigarettes. it reaches a threshold and now there is an market for the black market.  people don't care, they say fuck the government and their taxes and they buy black market.  more people are making their own ammo now too.  it's easy.
Click to expand...


Cigarette consumption is generally at it's lowest point in history due in no small part to the price having to be paid.  

It could work very easily with guns.  

As for this black market; yeah okay.  I could probably get my next TV set from a guy selling them out of his van for cheaper than I'll pay at Wal*Mart.  I'm likely to still go to Wal*Mart.  Ninety percent of the people would do the same .  

It's a comical argument.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah cause no one ever buys illegal products made in south america, asia, europe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
Click to expand...


So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...

How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
Click to expand...


I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?  

If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
Click to expand...


Retard. It's legal to manufacture and buy guns.  The question was what if guns were made illegal to manufacture and sell in the states.  Then most of us would gladly tell the feds to shove it just as we did during prohibition and just as we are doing now regarding weed.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to buy guns.
Click to expand...


But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
Click to expand...


Why go to the black market when it's legal to buy guns?  Why would I do that?  Today, only criminals need to buy illegal guns.  The fact that they are criminals makes the illegal market more expensive due to the risk.  There is no benefit to the bulk of the market to use the black market when there is a fair priced capitalist free market.


----------



## RKMBrown

If however, government starts taxing it like cigs.. there will be an illegal black market like the one for cigs.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
Click to expand...


The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to buy guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
Click to expand...


Kaz, that is what they want.  The reason the democrats want us to be "defenseless" is so we'll have to pay them (government) to defend us.  It's no different than the mafia demanding "protection" money.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How expensive do you think pot is?  How much is sold here each year?  You are blind if you think making something illegal runs the price up and/or slows the flow down.  All it does is screw over the people who manufacture here in the states and then screw over the people in the states that have to pay to keep freedom fighters in jail.
Click to expand...


Yea, if they legalize all illegal drugs, the price would probably go up, because there would be thousands or millions now buying them and a lot of their disposable income would frivolously go to pot or cocaine. The demand would soar and prices would go up dramatically.


----------



## RKMBrown

QuickHitCurepon said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How expensive do you think pot is?  How much is sold here each year?  You are blind if you think making something illegal runs the price up and/or slows the flow down.  All it does is screw over the people who manufacture here in the states and then screw over the people in the states that have to pay to keep freedom fighters in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, if they legalize all illegal drugs, the price would probably go up, because there would be thousands or millions now buying them and a lot of their disposable income would go to pot or cocaine. The demand would soar and prices would go up dramatically.
Click to expand...


Not if we started producing here.  America used to be a top producer of hemp.  Additionally, the price of drugs would fall due to the alternate sources for the expensive pain killing drugs made from poppies etc.  Demand would not change much if any.  

However, south america's economy would be screwed.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to buy guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why go to the black market when it's legal to buy guns?  Why would I do that?
Click to expand...

You're not paying sales tax.  



RKMBrown said:


> Today, only criminals need to buy illegal guns.  The fact that they are criminals makes the illegal market more expensive due to the risk.


Oh...so the black market is more expensive.



RKMBrown said:


> There is no benefit to the bulk of the market to use the black market when there is a fair priced capitalist free market.



So raising the price would automatically force businessmen, housewives and college students to go to this shady black market instead of just saving up for a couple of more weeks?

Is THAT your argument?


----------



## RKMBrown

Drugs are already legal in the states, only it's a protected monopoly on the producers and the drugs have to be purchased through scripts.  Eliminate the monopoly and the prescription requirement and the price falls.


----------



## Antares

candycorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the price of guns to the "non criminal" market is going to go up due to reduced production.  Higher prices means fewer buyers when there is elastic demand.  Guns are pretty much a luxury item and if the price goes up from $700 to $1,000, fewer buyers will mean fewer being made.  Thus you have a shortage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guess again.   bought my HK-91 for $389 prior to Clintons assault weapons ban.  at the range about 9 months ago I was offered $4500 for it.   If I was even considering selling it I could have worked that initial offer up.  you can't out price guns.  they thought they could out price ammo.  it went up 5 times the going rate with Obama's push after sandy hook.  what happened. every available piece of ammo sold out. manufacturers ramped up production, added shifts and still they can not meet the demand.    when something becomes too expensive or too difficult to get by conventional means, what happens?  the black market.  they thought they could out price cigarettes. it reaches a threshold and now there is an market for the black market.  people don't care, they say fuck the government and their taxes and they buy black market.  more people are making their own ammo now too.  it's easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cigarette consumption is generally at it's lowest point in history due in no small part to the price having to be paid.
> 
> It could work very easily with guns.
> 
> As for this black market; yeah okay.  I could probably get my next TV set from a guy selling them out of his van for cheaper than I'll pay at Wal*Mart.  I'm likely to still go to Wal*Mart.  Ninety percent of the people would do the same .
> 
> It's a comical argument.
Click to expand...


No honey, whats comical is that you think you can get guns out of the hands of the criminals who use them by pssing more laws


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why go to the black market when it's legal to buy guns?  Why would I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not paying sales tax.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, only criminals need to buy illegal guns.  The fact that they are criminals makes the illegal market more expensive due to the risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...so the black market is more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no benefit to the bulk of the market to use the black market when there is a fair priced capitalist free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So raising the price would automatically force businessmen, housewives and college students to go to this shady black market instead of just saving up for a couple of more weeks?
> 
> Is THAT your argument?
Click to expand...


Sales tax is insignificant when compared to the risk of buying illegal guns.

The black market for good guns is certainly more expensive today.

The black market would not be more expensive if a restrictive tax were applied to guns.

The market would move from walmart to the back alleys where pot is sold.  The pot sellers would have a new product.

There is a line that the government can cross, beyond which the people revolt.  Look at prohibition and the war on drugs as evidence.  Pot is dirt cheap.  Guns are dirt cheap.

You are not paying attn.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to buy guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
Click to expand...


You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply

In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.  

Why?

If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?

So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.  

It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
Click to expand...


ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL

I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory. 

What we need to do is put people like you, who take our liberties away, in jail.


----------



## Antares

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL
> 
> I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory.
Click to expand...


She is as dense as it gets.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RKMBrown said:


> Drugs are already legal in the states, only it's a protected monopoly on the producers and the drugs have to be purchased through scripts.  Eliminate the monopoly and the prescription requirement and the price falls.



If guns were outlawed, there would be legal ways around buying them illegally too. 

People that are consuming heroin, blow and weed aren't going to be amenable to red tape. They'll just want to go down to the store, grab what they want and splurge.


----------



## MikeK

candycorn said:


> Cigarette consumption is generally at it's lowest point in history due in no small part to the price having to be paid.
> 
> It could work very easily with guns.
> 
> [...]


Increasing their cost would make guns readily available to the wealthy while systematically impeding ordinary citizens  access to them, thereby systematically defeating the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment.    

Also, cigarettes and guns are not a valid comparison because cigarettes harm all who use them while only a very small percentage of guns are misused.


----------



## RKMBrown

QuickHitCurepon said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs are already legal in the states, only it's a protected monopoly on the producers and the drugs have to be purchased through scripts.  Eliminate the monopoly and the prescription requirement and the price falls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If guns were outlawed, there would be legal ways around buying them illegally too.
> 
> People that are consuming heroin, blow and weed aren't going to be amenable to red tape. They'll just want to go down to the store, grab what they want and splurge.
Click to expand...


So? Why should I be punished for their desire to drink themselves or drug themselves to death?

Look someone aborted a baby, make it illegal to have sex?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

RKMBrown said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs are already legal in the states, only it's a protected monopoly on the producers and the drugs have to be purchased through scripts.  Eliminate the monopoly and the prescription requirement and the price falls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If guns were outlawed, there would be legal ways around buying them illegally too.
> 
> People that are consuming heroin, blow and weed aren't going to be amenable to red tape. They'll just want to go down to the store, grab what they want and splurge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Why should I be punished for their desire to drink themselves or drug themselves to death?
Click to expand...


I don't think you should be. That's just why I feel the prices would go up.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why go to the black market when it's legal to buy guns?  Why would I do that?
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying sales tax.
> 
> 
> Oh...so the black market is more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no benefit to the bulk of the market to use the black market when there is a fair priced capitalist free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So raising the price would automatically force businessmen, housewives and college students to go to this shady black market instead of just saving up for a couple of more weeks?
> 
> Is THAT your argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sales tax is insignificant when compared to the risk of buying illegal guns.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that if it's illegal, thats a barrier to entry regardless of price. I'm also of the opinion that the barrier will remain there.  Nobody really needs a gun in this day and age so if it comes down to "break the law or buy a gun from a guy at a flea market", I'm pretty sure that most won't buy the gun.  



RKMBrown said:


> The black market for good guns is certainly more expensive today.
> 
> The black market would not be more expensive if a restrictive tax were applied to guns.



Well, it's not a tax.  The manufacturer would have to basically put a bond amount for a set period of time with each weapon they make.  

As for the amount of price increase to push people in to commiting an illegal act for an item they don't need...you tell me; how much would it have to go up to make you buy an illegal product?



RKMBrown said:


> The market would move from walmart to the back alleys where pot is sold.  The pot sellers would have a new product.
> 
> There is a line that the government can cross, beyond which the people revolt.  Look at prohibition and the war on drugs as evidence.  Pot is dirt cheap.  Guns are dirt cheap.
> 
> You are not paying attn.



I agree with prohibition and I agree with the war on drugs.  Which is why I'm not saying make guns illegal.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
Click to expand...


Damn, I was going to go on a shooting rampage, but damn, three weeks salary to buy a gun?  Pass...

High schoolers can afford pot.  How expensive can guns get?  Not very.  You can't keep black markets from operating in free countries.  I realize as an authoritarian you don't want a free country, but just picking guns isn't going to work.  You're going to have to seal the borders and fill the prisons ala Singapore style to have a chance.


----------



## candycorn

MikeK said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cigarette consumption is generally at it's lowest point in history due in no small part to the price having to be paid.
> 
> It could work very easily with guns.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing their cost would make guns readily available to the wealthy while systematically impeding ordinary citizens of access, thereby systematically defeating the fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment.
> 
> Also, cigarettes and guns are not a valid comparison because cigarettes harm all who use them while only a very small percentage of guns are misused.
Click to expand...


They also harm people who are near people who are using them.

Still the cigarette taxes are on every pack sold; not only for those who are getting cancer.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL
> 
> I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory.
> 
> What we need to do is put people like you, who take our liberties away, in jail.
Click to expand...


It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.

Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL
> 
> I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory.
> 
> What we need to do is put people like you, who take our liberties away, in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
Click to expand...


Cigs give you cancer.  Guns save your life.  Cig taxes pushed purchases to the Indian Reservations and other black market sources.  Cigs becoming unpopular reduced the number of people smoking them.

Yeah same thing.  

Remington does not hold a monopoly.  The reason guns are cheap is the fact that there is no monopoly.  The price of guns is set by supply and demand.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, I was going to go on a shooting rampage, but damn, three weeks salary to buy a gun?  Pass...
Click to expand...

See, it's working.



kaz said:


> High schoolers can afford pot.


First it was cars, now pot seems to be the equation.

Pot is one of those rites of passage for kids.  Many try; comparatively few  relative to those who try continue use.



kaz said:


> How expensive can guns get?  Not very.
> You can't keep black markets from operating in free countries.  I realize as an authoritarian you don't want a free country, but just picking guns isn't going to work.  You're going to have to seal the borders and fill the prisons ala Singapore style to have a chance.



I'm hoping we make all gun crimes a federal crime; you use a gun (not fire it--just have it with you) while commiting a crime; soyanara for 10 years.  Pretty authoratarian I suppose but I'll be happy to wear that bage for a safer society.  

The assumption that the nurse who wants a gun will discover this yellow pages directing her to the alley where she can buy a gun, ignore the law she abides every day, and plunk down cold hard cash  is nutty but that seems to be a common streak with gun nuts...

Most of whom insist they need a gun to kill the feds who are coming along any day now to confiscate said gun; all the while insisting that we never reduce funding for those same feds.

It's a strange dynamic...insisting we keep funding the department of the govenrnment you fear most.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I was going to go on a shooting rampage, but damn, three weeks salary to buy a gun?  Pass...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, it's working.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> High schoolers can afford pot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First it was cars, now pot seems to be the equation.
> 
> Pot is one of those rites of passage for kids.  Many try; comparatively few  relative to those who try continue use.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How expensive can guns get?  Not very.
> You can't keep black markets from operating in free countries.  I realize as an authoritarian you don't want a free country, but just picking guns isn't going to work.  You're going to have to seal the borders and fill the prisons ala Singapore style to have a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm hoping we make all gun crimes a federal crime; you use a gun (not fire it--just have it with you) while commiting a crime; soyanara for 10 years.  Pretty authoratarian I suppose but I'll be happy to wear that bage for a safer society.
> 
> The assumption that the nurse who wants a gun will discover this yellow pages directing her to the alley where she can buy a gun, ignore the law she abides every day, and plunk down cold hard cash  is nutty but that seems to be a common streak with gun nuts...
> 
> Most of whom insist they need a gun to kill the feds who are coming along any day now to confiscate said gun; all the while insisting that we never reduce funding for those same feds.
> 
> It's a strange dynamic...insisting we keep funding the department of the govenrnment you fear most.
Click to expand...


Why do you want a gun free society with a "homeland" security force that is every bit as powerful as the mightiest military on the planet?

To what end do you want this supposed security?  

What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL
> 
> I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory.
> 
> What we need to do is put people like you, who take our liberties away, in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cigs give you cancer.  Guns save your life.  Cig taxes pushed purchases to the Indian Reservations and other black market sources.  Cigs becoming unpopular reduced the number of people smoking them.
> 
> Yeah same thing.
> 
> Remington does not hold a monopoly.  The reason guns are cheap is the fact that there is no monopoly.  The price of guns is set by supply and demand.
Click to expand...


We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.  

We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, I was going to go on a shooting rampage, but damn, three weeks salary to buy a gun?  Pass...
> 
> 
> 
> See, it's working.
> 
> 
> First it was cars, now pot seems to be the equation.
> 
> Pot is one of those rites of passage for kids.  Many try; comparatively few  relative to those who try continue use.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How expensive can guns get?  Not very.
> You can't keep black markets from operating in free countries.  I realize as an authoritarian you don't want a free country, but just picking guns isn't going to work.  You're going to have to seal the borders and fill the prisons ala Singapore style to have a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm hoping we make all gun crimes a federal crime; you use a gun (not fire it--just have it with you) while commiting a crime; soyanara for 10 years.  Pretty authoratarian I suppose but I'll be happy to wear that bage for a safer society.
> 
> The assumption that the nurse who wants a gun will discover this yellow pages directing her to the alley where she can buy a gun, ignore the law she abides every day, and plunk down cold hard cash  is nutty but that seems to be a common streak with gun nuts...
> 
> Most of whom insist they need a gun to kill the feds who are coming along any day now to confiscate said gun; all the while insisting that we never reduce funding for those same feds.
> 
> It's a strange dynamic...insisting we keep funding the department of the govenrnment you fear most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want a gun free society with a "homeland" security force that is every bit as powerful as the mightiest military on the planet?
> 
> To what end do you want this supposed security?
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
Click to expand...


Oh brother. 
Never said that.  Anyone who wants a gun can still get a gun.  I just want it to be more expensive driving the supply down ultimately.  

Fewer gunshot victims in our emergency rooms at my hospitals is my goal.  

Fewer 

Sandy Hooks
Columbines
Virginia Techs
etc....

Would be nicer too.  

Stringent enforcement of gun laws; promotion of gun crimes to Federal level where there is no parole and you're gone for the entire length of yoru sentence would be a big help.  Federal Prosecutors have something like a 90+ % conviction rate.  Aim that at armed robbers you end up with fewre armed robbers.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cigs give you cancer.  Guns save your life.  Cig taxes pushed purchases to the Indian Reservations and other black market sources.  Cigs becoming unpopular reduced the number of people smoking them.
> 
> Yeah same thing.
> 
> Remington does not hold a monopoly.  The reason guns are cheap is the fact that there is no monopoly.  The price of guns is set by supply and demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.
> 
> We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.
Click to expand...


Does my machete make me safer than my shotgun? Should I use a pistol to kill a cougar when it attacks my dogs, or a pen knife?


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cigs give you cancer.  Guns save your life.  Cig taxes pushed purchases to the Indian Reservations and other black market sources.  Cigs becoming unpopular reduced the number of people smoking them.
> 
> Yeah same thing.
> 
> Remington does not hold a monopoly.  The reason guns are cheap is the fact that there is no monopoly.  The price of guns is set by supply and demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.
> 
> We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does my machete make me safer than my shotgun? Should I use a pistol to kill a cougar when it attacks my dogs, or a pen knife?
Click to expand...


If guns made us safer, we'd have fewer gun deaths in this nation since our citizens have, by far, more guns than any other society.  Instead, we are among the leader in gun deaths in advanced societies.  

So statistically, the machete makes you safer.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, it's working.
> 
> 
> First it was cars, now pot seems to be the equation.
> 
> Pot is one of those rites of passage for kids.  Many try; comparatively few  relative to those who try continue use.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping we make all gun crimes a federal crime; you use a gun (not fire it--just have it with you) while commiting a crime; soyanara for 10 years.  Pretty authoratarian I suppose but I'll be happy to wear that bage for a safer society.
> 
> The assumption that the nurse who wants a gun will discover this yellow pages directing her to the alley where she can buy a gun, ignore the law she abides every day, and plunk down cold hard cash  is nutty but that seems to be a common streak with gun nuts...
> 
> Most of whom insist they need a gun to kill the feds who are coming along any day now to confiscate said gun; all the while insisting that we never reduce funding for those same feds.
> 
> It's a strange dynamic...insisting we keep funding the department of the govenrnment you fear most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want a gun free society with a "homeland" security force that is every bit as powerful as the mightiest military on the planet?
> 
> To what end do you want this supposed security?
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh brother.
> Never said that.  Anyone who wants a gun can still get a gun.  I just want it to be more expensive driving the supply down ultimately.
> 
> Fewer gunshot victims in our emergency rooms at my hospitals is my goal.
> 
> Fewer
> 
> Sandy Hooks
> Columbines
> Virginia Techs
> etc....
> 
> Would be nicer too.
> 
> Stringent enforcement of gun laws; promotion of gun crimes to Federal level where there is no parole and you're gone for the entire length of yoru sentence would be a big help.  Federal Prosecutors have something like a 90+ % conviction rate.  Aim that at armed robbers you end up with fewre armed robbers.
Click to expand...


Those were "gun free zones."   We already have strict laws regarding criminals that use guns.  The problem with guns today is the people who want gun free zones enable psyco killers.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> High schoolers can afford pot.
> 
> 
> 
> First it was cars, now pot seems to be the equation.
Click to expand...


Um...you didn't read the op, did you?  Please go back and read it.  Then go to the next part.



candycorn said:


> Pot is one of those rites of passage for kids.  Many try; comparatively few  relative to those who try continue use.



The point is, as I said in the op about ... pot ... not cars, they can't keep pot out of schools.  Pot is illegal and high schoolers can get all they want.  Guns aren't complicated technology and they are everywhere in and outside the country.  If you can't keep illegal pot from kids, how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  That's the question, always was.


----------



## RKMBrown

That said I have no problem with sales taxes being used to build and maintain insane asylums to keep the whacks off the street.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?



A kind, authoritarian government who is benevolent and caring towards it's own people, has no border security, provides free birth control and abortions so people can screw their brains out and doesn't censor cuss words on TV.

Don't you want that too?


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.
> 
> We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does my machete make me safer than my shotgun? Should I use a pistol to kill a cougar when it attacks my dogs, or a pen knife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If guns made us safer, we'd have fewer gun deaths in this nation since our citizens have, by far, more guns than any other society.  Instead, we are among the leader in gun deaths in advanced societies.
> 
> So statistically, the machete makes you safer.
Click to expand...


Our gun crime is a reflection of our democrat culture.  Statistics about guns are all lies. They are lies because they ignore accidents, use of guns for defensive purposes, and suicides.  They count all gun deaths in one pile.  Guns are simply more efficient tools than say a knife.  Though a knife will still work.  Banning efficient tools is stupidity.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> If guns made us safer, we'd have fewer gun deaths in this nation since our citizens have, by far, more guns than any other society.  Instead, we are among the leader in gun deaths in advanced societies.
> 
> So statistically, the machete makes you safer.



How does a gun locked at home in your closet make you safer?  What you are saying would be true if gun laws didn't prevent people from having them where they are needed.

How many people who got blown away in the Navy Yard had guns and knew perfectly well how to use them, but didn't have them because they weren't allowed to carry them?


----------



## Steven_R

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cigs give you cancer.  Guns save your life.  Cig taxes pushed purchases to the Indian Reservations and other black market sources.  Cigs becoming unpopular reduced the number of people smoking them.
> 
> Yeah same thing.
> 
> Remington does not hold a monopoly.  The reason guns are cheap is the fact that there is no monopoly.  The price of guns is set by supply and demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.
> 
> We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.
Click to expand...


Can we stigmatize doctors while we're at it? For every gun death in the US there are three death's from doctor's mistakes and there are a lot fewer doctors than there are guns and gun owners.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A kind, authoritarian government who is benevolent and caring towards it's own people, has no border security, provides free birth control and abortions so people can screw their brains out and doesn't censor cuss words on TV.
> 
> Don't you want that too?
Click to expand...


No.  I would prefer a government that knows it's place as our employee, where the people live free under the rule of law, where border security meant we don't need security on the border, and where birth control was limited to condoms and the pill type control.  As to cussing on TV, whatever.  Let the people decide through supply and demand what they want to watch.


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do.
> 
> But it's not as if the illegal arms are immune from market forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
Click to expand...

.
I own many weapons, all of which I obtained legally. Some even have a paper trail.
None of them were obtained illegally because of that pesky 2nd Amendment.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A kind, authoritarian government
Click to expand...

I'm overall pleased with out government.  I reject all "isms" as a rule of thumb.  



kaz said:


> who is benevolent and caring towards it's own people,


Nothing wrong with that in my view.



kaz said:


> has no border security,


No.  Far from it.  I like this model 







I think there should be a channel from San Diego to Texas for shipping just inside this barrier just to make sure.



kaz said:


> provides free birth control


Low-cost isn't free but I'd rather pay pennies for contraception than spend dollars for welfare/incarceration down the line.  It's called common sense.


kaz said:


> and abortions so people can screw their brains out


Pretty much the dumbest thing you've said and that is saying quite a bit.



kaz said:


> and doesn't censor cuss words on TV.


No need to censor anything, anywhere.  We've established that if you censor/restrict it; you can get it from your pot dealer.  



kaz said:


> Don't you want that too?



I guess we're done.


----------



## candycorn

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That point works against you.  Driving prices up just motivates the illegal gun trade.  Because of ... wait for it ... market forces ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> I own many weapons, all of which I obtained legally. Some even have a paper trail.
> None of them were obtained illegally because of that pesky 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


Apparently your'e a fool.

You could have bought them from Louie and his black market behind Wal*Mart cheaper.  They have every gun you want, no sales tax....


----------



## Ernie S.

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to manufacture and buy guns.  The question was what if guns were made illegal to manufacture and sell in the states.  Then most of us would gladly tell the feds to shove it just as we did during prohibition and just as we are doing now regarding weed.
Click to expand...

I'd be buying a load of steel. I am fully capable of making guns. I have built several prototypes in the past.
I am not all that unique. I suppose there are a million people in the states able to make a gun and maybe 100,000 with the resources to start small scale production.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A kind, authoritarian government who is benevolent and caring towards it's own people, has no border security, provides free birth control and abortions so people can screw their brains out and doesn't censor cuss words on TV.
> 
> Don't you want that too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I would prefer a government that knows it's place as our employee, where the people live free under the rule of law, where border security meant we don't need security on the border, and where birth control was limited to condoms and the pill type control.  As to cussing on TV, whatever.  Let the people decide through supply and demand what they want to watch.
Click to expand...


I think he ws trying to take a shot at me...


----------



## candycorn

Steven_R said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cigs give you cancer.  Guns save your life.  Cig taxes pushed purchases to the Indian Reservations and other black market sources.  Cigs becoming unpopular reduced the number of people smoking them.
> 
> Yeah same thing.
> 
> Remington does not hold a monopoly.  The reason guns are cheap is the fact that there is no monopoly.  The price of guns is set by supply and demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.
> 
> We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we stigmatize doctors while we're at it? For every gun death in the US there are three death's from doctor's mistakes and there are a lot fewer doctors than there are guns and gun owners.
Click to expand...


Do you have a source for that statistic?  

One of the many good things about the ACA (as I understand it) is that the preventative healthcare emphasis will assist doctors in being able to track your health through decades of doctor visits.  High blood pressure, for example, is damaging to your kidneys.  If she/he can see that you've had hypertension since you were a kid, when you show up with a renal issue, the leading candidate won't be bladder cancer or liver issues....likely the hypertension they will be made aware of by reviewing your file.  

I would like to have some sort of scoring system for Dr's.  You can recite your favorite pitcher's ERA but do you know how many patients of your doctor improved their overall health after a year under their care?  

Good idea.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A kind, authoritarian government who is benevolent and caring towards it's own people, has no border security, provides free birth control and abortions so people can screw their brains out and doesn't censor cuss words on TV.
> 
> Don't you want that too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I would prefer a government that knows it's place as our employee, where the people live free under the rule of law, where border security meant we don't need security on the border, and where birth control was limited to condoms and the pill type control.  As to cussing on TV, whatever.  Let the people decide through supply and demand what they want to watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he ws trying to take a shot at me...
Click to expand...


Yeah the sarcasm was not lost on me.. I just wanted to reply to the parts where libertarians want more freedom than even the right wants.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I suppose you've bought all of your weapons illegally then?  Hey, if it's so much cheaper than Dick's Sporting Goods and the sales tax in your state...
> 
> How many illegal weapons DO YOU own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to manufacture and buy guns.  The question was what if guns were made illegal to manufacture and sell in the states.  Then most of us would gladly tell the feds to shove it just as we did during prohibition and just as we are doing now regarding weed.
Click to expand...


Of course you're putting words in my mouth.

Never once have I said I want to  prohibit guns.  

Debate all you wish but stop lying about my position.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to manufacture and buy guns.  The question was what if guns were made illegal to manufacture and sell in the states.  Then most of us would gladly tell the feds to shove it just as we did during prohibition and just as we are doing now regarding weed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd be buying a load of steel. I am fully capable of making guns. I have built several prototypes in the past.
> I am not all that unique. I suppose there are a million people in the states able to make a gun and maybe 100,000 with the resources to start small scale production.
Click to expand...


How much does it cost to make a Molotov cocktail?  30cents?


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you can go to this "black market" and buy them cheaper; right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
Click to expand...


And someone like me will start producing guns at a cost of 1.5 weeks pay and supply all the guns the private sector wants. Think Prohibition.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to manufacture and buy guns.  The question was what if guns were made illegal to manufacture and sell in the states.  Then most of us would gladly tell the feds to shove it just as we did during prohibition and just as we are doing now regarding weed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Never once have I said I want to  prohibit guns.
> 
> Debate all you wish but stop lying about my position.
Click to expand...

Where did I say you did?  Where did I put words in your mouth? How about you cite me when you are lying about what I said?


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And someone like me will start producing guns at a cost of 1.5 weeks pay and supply all the guns the private sector wants. Think Prohibition.
Click to expand...


You sell the guns, I'll sell bows, tools to make cocktails, tools to make air powered projectile weapons, etc.    Drones and other projectile firing weapons are gonna change things real soon now. Guns will go the way of the dodo bird.


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL
> 
> I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory.
> 
> What we need to do is put people like you, who take our liberties away, in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
Click to expand...


What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?


----------



## Steven_R

candycorn said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of indian reservations here; there are very few who are being over-run by smokers.  You're telling stories.
> 
> We also need to stigmatize guns; they really don't make you safer.  If they did, we would have almost zero gun deaths per year since we have a gazillion guns in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we stigmatize doctors while we're at it? For every gun death in the US there are three death's from doctor's mistakes and there are a lot fewer doctors than there are guns and gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for that statistic?
> 
> One of the many good things about the ACA (as I understand it) is that the preventative healthcare emphasis will assist doctors in being able to track your health through decades of doctor visits.  High blood pressure, for example, is damaging to your kidneys.  If she/he can see that you've had hypertension since you were a kid, when you show up with a renal issue, the leading candidate won't be bladder cancer or liver issues....likely the hypertension they will be made aware of by reviewing your file.
> 
> I would like to have some sort of scoring system for Dr's.  You can recite your favorite pitcher's ERA but do you know how many patients of your doctor improved their overall health after a year under their care?
> 
> Good idea.
Click to expand...


Google malpractice death rates. It's around 120,000 deaths per year just due to mistakes. and are found in multiple places.  Almost 30,000 are from falls. That's right, nearly as many people die in the US each year from falling in hospitals as die from guns.  That one is right from the CDC. FASTSTATS - Accidents or Unintentional Injuries


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, it's working.
> 
> 
> First it was cars, now pot seems to be the equation.
> 
> Pot is one of those rites of passage for kids.  Many try; comparatively few  relative to those who try continue use.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping we make all gun crimes a federal crime; you use a gun (not fire it--just have it with you) while commiting a crime; soyanara for 10 years.  Pretty authoratarian I suppose but I'll be happy to wear that bage for a safer society.
> 
> The assumption that the nurse who wants a gun will discover this yellow pages directing her to the alley where she can buy a gun, ignore the law she abides every day, and plunk down cold hard cash  is nutty but that seems to be a common streak with gun nuts...
> 
> Most of whom insist they need a gun to kill the feds who are coming along any day now to confiscate said gun; all the while insisting that we never reduce funding for those same feds.
> 
> It's a strange dynamic...insisting we keep funding the department of the govenrnment you fear most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want a gun free society with a "homeland" security force that is every bit as powerful as the mightiest military on the planet?
> 
> To what end do you want this supposed security?
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh brother.
> Never said that.  Anyone who wants a gun can still get a gun.  I just want it to be more expensive driving the supply down ultimately.
> 
> Fewer gunshot victims in our emergency rooms at my hospitals is my goal.
> 
> Fewer
> 
> Sandy Hooks
> Columbines
> Virginia Techs
> etc....
> 
> Would be nicer too.
> 
> Stringent enforcement of gun laws; promotion of gun crimes to Federal level where there is no parole and you're gone for the entire length of yoru sentence would be a big help.  Federal Prosecutors have something like a 90+ % conviction rate.  Aim that at armed robbers you end up with fewre armed robbers.
Click to expand...


Why are you so focused on mass shootings? 88 Americans were killed in mass shootings in the US last year. 530 people lost their lives one or 2 at a time in only Chicago during that time and about 16,000 nation wide.
180:1 odds that you will be shot as sole victim.


----------



## candycorn

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want a gun free society with a "homeland" security force that is every bit as powerful as the mightiest military on the planet?
> 
> To what end do you want this supposed security?
> 
> What is your end game?  Communism, Facism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother.
> Never said that.  Anyone who wants a gun can still get a gun.  I just want it to be more expensive driving the supply down ultimately.
> 
> Fewer gunshot victims in our emergency rooms at my hospitals is my goal.
> 
> Fewer
> 
> Sandy Hooks
> Columbines
> Virginia Techs
> etc....
> 
> Would be nicer too.
> 
> Stringent enforcement of gun laws; promotion of gun crimes to Federal level where there is no parole and you're gone for the entire length of yoru sentence would be a big help.  Federal Prosecutors have something like a 90+ % conviction rate.  Aim that at armed robbers you end up with fewre armed robbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you so focused on mass shootings? 88 Americans were killed in mass shootings in the US last year. 530 people lost their lives one or 2 at a time in only Chicago during that time and about 16,000 nation wide.
> 180:1 odds that you will be shot as sole victim.
Click to expand...


You're right; mass shootings get the headlines but we have a chronic gun problem.


----------



## candycorn

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL typical authoritarian thinks they can force demand to decrease by screwing people over.  ROFL
> 
> I have tons of guns.  Make it illegal I'd love to make some good money off my inventory.
> 
> What we need to do is put people like you, who take our liberties away, in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
Click to expand...


No need for cussing.

Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not asking you to give up your source but really; the black market sounds great.  You can avoid sales taxes so it makes me wonder why Dick's is sold out of weapons....everyone should be at this black market...right?
> 
> If illegal arms are so prevealant; why are gun manufacturers running 3 shifts and "can't keep up"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard. It's legal to manufacture and buy guns.  The question was what if guns were made illegal to manufacture and sell in the states.  Then most of us would gladly tell the feds to shove it just as we did during prohibition and just as we are doing now regarding weed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you're putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Never once have I said I want to  prohibit guns.
> 
> Debate all you wish but stop lying about my position.
Click to expand...


The liar is you, you want to restrict guns to the rich. You want Joe q. public not to be able to afford firearms. All with illegal maneuvers not even close to Constitutional.


----------



## candycorn

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that if you drive up the price of guns, THEN they will be cheaper on the black market.  Criminals won't have a problem getting them.  The whole point of this is that your policies make it harder and harder for people to defend themselves  without keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Seriously, after all this discussion, you don't get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And someone like me will start producing guns at a cost of 1.5 weeks pay and supply all the guns the private sector wants. Think Prohibition.
Click to expand...


Well, best of luck to you I guess.


----------



## Steven_R

candycorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
Click to expand...


Hold on. A right is not an obligation on anyone. A right is something government cannot take away. 

Remington is under no obligation to provide me with a rifle. The government cannot keep me from buying a rifle. 

Do you see the difference?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Steven_R said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on. A right is not an obligation on anyone. A right is something government cannot take away.
> 
> Remington is under no obligation to provide me with a rifle. The government cannot keep me from buying a rifle.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...


No he doesn't. he thinks he can put prohibitive taxes on firearms and ammo and create illegal insurance scams as well.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
Click to expand...


Typical libtard. Thinks a right to health care and guns means the government has to steal money from rich people to give them health care and guns for free.

Typical.


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother.
> Never said that.  Anyone who wants a gun can still get a gun.  I just want it to be more expensive driving the supply down ultimately.
> 
> Fewer gunshot victims in our emergency rooms at my hospitals is my goal.
> 
> Fewer
> 
> Sandy Hooks
> Columbines
> Virginia Techs
> etc....
> 
> Would be nicer too.
> 
> Stringent enforcement of gun laws; promotion of gun crimes to Federal level where there is no parole and you're gone for the entire length of yoru sentence would be a big help.  Federal Prosecutors have something like a 90+ % conviction rate.  Aim that at armed robbers you end up with fewre armed robbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so focused on mass shootings? 88 Americans were killed in mass shootings in the US last year. 530 people lost their lives one or 2 at a time in only Chicago during that time and about 16,000 nation wide.
> 180:1 odds that you will be shot as sole victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right; mass shootings get the headlines but we have a chronic gun problem.
Click to expand...

Yes. Guns in the hands of criminals are problematic. How do you propose to solve that without violating my rights; without infringing my right to keep and bear arms?

I could tell you how to cut US gun deaths in half within one year, but you wouldn't like my solution.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical libtard. Thinks a right to health care and guns means the government has to steal money from rich people to give them health care and guns for free.
> 
> Typical.
Click to expand...


Well if you have a right and government doesn't fund it, then government is preventing you from exercising your rights.  You have the right, but you can't do it.  So they HAVE to fund it.  Get it?


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical libtard. Thinks a right to health care and guns means the government has to steal money from rich people to give them health care and guns for free.
> 
> Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you have a right and government doesn't fund it, then government is preventing you from exercising your rights.  You have the right, but you can't do it.  So they HAVE to fund it.  Get it?
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it.  That's why modern progressive libtard liberals are not welcome here.


----------



## Ernie S.

candycorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It worked with cigarettes. It will work with guns.
> 
> Your liberties are safe.  Nothing in the Constitution sets the price of the gun you're able to purchase.  Remington does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
Click to expand...


It's *fucking* frustrating trying to use logic with Liberals.

Remington is NOT the government, you fool. They have no obligation to provide me with free guns. The Constitution places limits on the powers of *government*, not corporations.
Let's see if I can explain it to you.
If you and I disagree, it's perfectly legal for me to tell you to shut the fuck up.

If your government disagrees with what you say, it is unconstitutional for Congress to tell you to shut the fuck up.

Got that?

Good!

Now, shut the fuck up.


----------



## candycorn

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *fucking* frustrating trying to use logic with Liberals.
> 
> Remington is NOT the government, you fool. They have no obligation to provide me with free guns. The Constitution places limits on the powers of *government*, not corporations.
Click to expand...

Nothing I suggested places the governemnt between you and Remington.  Get a fucking clue.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical libtard. Thinks a right to health care and guns means the government has to steal money from rich people to give them health care and guns for free.
> 
> Typical.
Click to expand...


Never said that either.
You thought a tax was "unconstitutional" because it prevents you from attaining the gun
Therefore the price charged is just as unconstitutional.  

Your logic.  Not mine.


----------



## candycorn

Steven_R said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so fucking hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on. A right is not an obligation on anyone. A right is something government cannot take away.
> 
> Remington is under no obligation to provide me with a rifle. The government cannot keep me from buying a rifle.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...


Didn't ever suggest the government take anything away.  

The government isn't keeping you from buying a rifle.  I guess you mean sales taxes are unconstitutional...do explain.


----------



## candycorn

Ernie S. said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so focused on mass shootings? 88 Americans were killed in mass shootings in the US last year. 530 people lost their lives one or 2 at a time in only Chicago during that time and about 16,000 nation wide.
> 180:1 odds that you will be shot as sole victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right; mass shootings get the headlines but we have a chronic gun problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Guns in the hands of criminals are problematic. How do you propose to solve that without violating my rights; without infringing my right to keep and bear arms?
> 
> I could tell you how to cut US gun deaths in half within one year, but you wouldn't like my solution.
Click to expand...


Feel free...nothing you can suggest is going to hurt me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on. A right is not an obligation on anyone. A right is something government cannot take away.
> 
> Remington is under no obligation to provide me with a rifle. The government cannot keep me from buying a rifle.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't ever suggest the government take anything away.
> 
> The government isn't keeping you from buying a rifle.  I guess you mean sales taxes are unconstitutional...do explain.
Click to expand...


You suggested exorbitant taxes BY the Government, then you suggested illegal Insurance scams mandated by the Government. Your goal as you admitted was to eliminate firearms from most people's ability to own them.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No criminal record.
> Honorably discharged Army Veteran
> Hold down a good paying job.
> 
> Yeah, I probably could.
> 
> But there's the thing.  The three guys mentioned had all been flagged as mentally ill.
> 
> Holmes was being thrown out of the university.
> 
> Loughner had been banned from a community college.  and seriously, how much of a screwup do you have to be to get banned from a community college.
> 
> Cho was being privately tutored by the university because so many of the other students had complained about his creepy behavior.
> 
> IN short, an investigation WOULD have raised red flags.
> 
> The standard is, "These guy shouldn't have had a gun." Period. There is no calculus where these guys having a gun was ever a good idea.
> 
> *If the only way to keep THESE guys from having guns is to take EVERYONE'S guns, I have no problem with that.  *
> 
> If you have way to keep the guns out of these guys hands, I'd be happy to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you have it, folks.
> 
> Like I said in my very first post in this thread, dimocrap scum want confiscation.
> 
> They'll surround it with lots of flowery language and pretend to be 'concerned' like they always do......
> 
> But it's a charade, it's Kabuki theatre --
> 
> dimocraps lie.  It's what they do.  They are the enemy of Freedom and American Values
> 
> They want confiscation.  Anybody who believes otherwise is delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every other industrialized country either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> And they are just as free as we are, and generally have better values.
> 
> The problem with you guys is you don't want to solve the problem at all.  You are fine with 32,000 gun death and 79,000 gun injuries every year, because, doooy, "Freedom" or something.
Click to expand...


Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For your argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'



No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes. 

While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most cars are not involved in accidents (my current car has never had a wreck for example and it's almost older than me) yet we require auto liability insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most guns aren't involved in accidents either. Most aren't even used in violent crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are different exactly how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not. It's the circumstances that are different. A few pages back I responded to you explaining this, but you may have missed it. You're saying people should carry liability insureance for guns like cars. I believe you said you wanted this in case *the insured *went and shot a bunch of people up with their gun, the victims could get money from the gun owner's insurance, right? That's a different scenario than the circumstances under which liability insurance kicks in on your car. There is a difference between being at fault for an act and intentionally commiting an act. Your liability insurance on your car kicked in because you were at fault in your accident, but just because you were at fault doesn't mean you intended to cause the accident. Taking a life has the same legal distinction where we have murder vs. manslaughter. Murder requires intent where manslaughter is usually about accidental negligence. Had you had intent to hurt someone with your vehicle like the person with the gun in your hypothetical, your liability insurance would have nothing to do with that. The only thing that would probably happen would be you getting dropped from your plan. Your auto liability doesn't pay out to the victim or victim's family if you intentionally run someone over. Compensation in that instance would be handled by the courts. This is why your liability insurance idea won't work, again, because that's not what liability insurance covers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> If the insured's gun is used in a crime...yes as in Sandy Hook.
> 
> The effect is a win-win.  The victims get some form of material compensation and the move retards gun ownership.
Click to expand...


Again this is factually incorrect. It doesn't even hold true in auto liability insurance. That is if your car is stolen and someone uses it to intentionally hurt someone you likely aren't going to be liable for that. If you intend to and do hurt or kill someone whether it be with a gun or a car, your insurance is not going to pay out to your victims. 

I know you will never see it this way, but less gun ownership is not a 'win'. If nothing else it's the same thing as saying liability insurance retards car ownership, thus reducing those deaths as well. Again I have to ask why are you not so passionatly fighting for that if you're so concerned about needless injury and death?


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the shooter and the person who bought the gun are now dead (as I stated).  Now what?
> 
> If John used *your* gun...yes it is your responsibility in my view.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends how he got my gun.  If I lent it to him, it could be.  If he broke in my house and stole it, it would be no more my responsibility than if he broke in my house and stole a fireplace poker and killed someone with it.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the past when we've had bombings, commissions have been sat up to pay victims both for Boston and 9/11 to answer your question.  Thankfully they've been so rare to this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private charities that's fine.  Again that it's my responsibility (via government mandate or taxes) to fund someone else's crime is just wrong in every possible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, no compensation should be built in; if the dead and their loved ones want to sue (while in the hospital, doing re-hab, trying to put their lives back together)....they can but nothing should be built in to compensate the injured.
> 
> Do I have your stance right?
Click to expand...


We all get the need and desire to place blame in times of tragedy and personal loss, but at the end of the day to hold an honest gun owner who does their due diligence in keeping their firearms safe, financially responsible for the victims of the person who stole their gun is simply immoral. It doesn't matter what other parties are dead or can't pay. That doesn't make the person the gun was stolen from responsible financially for the victims.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's *fucking* frustrating trying to use logic with Liberals.
> 
> Remington is NOT the government, you fool. They have no obligation to provide me with free guns. The Constitution places limits on the powers of *government*, not corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I suggested places the governemnt between you and Remington.  Get a fucking clue.
Click to expand...


Since your advocating that the LAW, which is government last I checked, require people to hold this liability insurance and putting heavy taxes on them, you are in fact putting government barriers between people and purchasing firearms. Just as you've repeatedly said you intend to do.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need for cussing.
> 
> Ask Remington; they're the one charging you for your guns.  They're infringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on. A right is not an obligation on anyone. A right is something government cannot take away.
> 
> Remington is under no obligation to provide me with a rifle. The government cannot keep me from buying a rifle.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't ever suggest the government take anything away.
> 
> The government isn't keeping you from buying a rifle.  I guess you mean sales taxes are unconstitutional...do explain.
Click to expand...


The constitution deals solely with the FEDERAL government and there is no FEDERAL sales tax.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
Click to expand...


Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns. 

And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.
Click to expand...

It's completely rational, Joe wants you to be disarmed and live in fear, only then will you submit to his massive all powerful government to keep you safe.  Besides criminals need to feel they are safe when they rob a home and rape the women at gun point.


----------



## editec

2012 stats:

 Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580

Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional

EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?

Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?

This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.

This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.

I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.

It's long overdue, actually.


----------



## MisterBeale

editec said:


> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.



What if a person is too poor to pay for insurance and can only afford bullets?

After that, tell me what part of . . . . 

"  *. . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*"   Don't you understand?

Start up your petition to repeal the second Amendment post haste sir.  Until then, your opinion really doesn't matter does it?  It clearly IS an infringement if I cannot afford insurance on a gun.   

If you are in poverty, you can afford a gun and bullets.  You CANNOT afford something with no tangible immediate short term benefits.  Sorry, that is the way the cookie crumbles.  Bullets will get you meat for the winter.  Insurance will not.


----------



## RKMBrown

editec said:


> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.



What part of the fact that everyone already has homeowners insurance and corporate insurance etc. is confusing you?


----------



## MisterBeale

You know, I was at a web blog this morning that raises awareness about government tyranny and police brutality, and it posted this poignant story a bar owner who sheltered peaceful protesters against the brutalization and unchecked authoritarian power of police in supposed a democracy in Europe, Spain.  That was just a small fifteen second blurb in a longer section of a horrific video of unchecked State power on a civilian population.

Now this protest over austerity started out peaceful enough, but it started attracting such an overwhelmingly huge number of people, that the state decided to disburse the crowd, which was, as I am sure you all could guess, unwilling to be disbursed until their democratic government told them what it was going to do to redress their concerns.

I really don't know what the solution is here.  How did it get so bad?  One thing is sure, the US is slowly drifting in the same direction.  What amazes me, is that protests like these don't make our MSM coverage.  Only people who monitor alternative news will hear about them.  Now, you want to know why our government wants our weapons?  Here, here you go.  How do you think an American crowd of this size would react if the government just decided to "disperse" the crowd and get aggressive on them?  

As it stands, they won't dare try this in the United States.  In fact, we have no need to protest, the American government won't let conditions get so bad that people would ever feel the need to hit the streets in this number.  For if they did. . . . well, you all get the point.  The riot police don't want to try to disperse a crowd this size.  Because if they ever did, next time the crowd would bring their guns.  In Spain?  No one has any guns. 

But here in the US, the government would only treat a crowd of protesters like this ONCE.  It would only happen ONCE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UDCRgqspmyU#t=259s]25S crónica 2 25 septiembre 2012 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFnBDFjfOg0]Riots in Spain - September 25 2012 Spanish Protest the Proposed European Austerity - YouTube[/ame]

Remember the 25th of September in Spain of last year.  That was easy in a nation with no guns.  And they (the international elites) have been struggling with this in places like Spain, Greece, Crete, Italy and it will spread.  Dealing with it is easy, (relatively,) if the population have no guns.  But repressing the poor, and taking away their rights are far more difficult if they can defend their rights.  This is what the bankers and corporatists are really worried about.  They hate level playing fields.

So let's be honest.  All these gun control debates aren't about trying to keep guns out of criminals hands, they are about making sure that the society, as a whole, is more docile, less willing to use violence to protest being abused by it's overlords.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.



Because, as you're aware, liability auto insurance isn't federal law. It's state law and not even in every state. If the a state wishes to require liability insurance on their firearms in the case of accidental injury or death, fine. But as with most liberal 'solutions' to this gun 'problem' it's like using a baseball bat to swat a fly. The gun deaths that are accidental are a mere fraction of that 31,000.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, *there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.*
Click to expand...


Well, except for that pesky 2nd Amendment. Why don't you run for Congress with a vow to repeal it? I'm certain you will get 6 or 7 votes.


----------



## hunarcy

editec said:


> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.



It's the same plan your forefathers came up with to keep poor whites and former slaves from voting.  It's a "poll tax" on fire arms...You guys really don't have new ideas.


----------



## Ernie S.

While you're at it, you had better look to repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments too.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> While you're at it, you had better look to repeal the 1st, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments too.



They already did.  The 14th due process clause essentially repealed all of our rights. Made us slaves of the government.

The 16th amendment gives them the power to take all of our income.

The 17th amendment gives them the tyranny of the simple majority (51%).


----------



## kaz

editec said:


> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.



According to the CDC, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2012.  

Why would you compare automobile ... accidents ... with intentional use of firearms?

And even if you do include intentional use of firearms, the point is there are 11,078 people who were limited by government in their ability to defend themselves.  The point of the thread, read the op, is how do you keep guns from those 11,078 murderers?  A point you don't address at all.

Basically your point is a complete zero.

There's


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
Click to expand...


People want to protect their loved ones?


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.



I'm getting pretty different numbers than you on the CDC report I'm looking at. This is their report from 2012 with most recent data being 2010 from page 91.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Motor vehicle accidents were 35,332

Homicides by firearms were 11,078

Accidents from firearms were 606.

Only way i came up with similar number is if you count suicides by firearms in your stats which were about 19,000, while open for debate I don't think those should count.


----------



## kaz

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People want to protect their loved ones?
Click to expand...


So does Joe, he wants to protect government.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting pretty different numbers than you on the CDC report I'm looking at. This is their report from 2012 with most recent data being 2010 from page 91.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
> 
> Motor vehicle accidents were 35,332
> 
> Homicides by firearms were 11,078
> 
> Accidents from firearms were 606.
> 
> Only way i came up with similar number is if you count suicides by firearms in your stats which were about 19,000, while open for debate I don't think those should count.
Click to expand...


What!  If they didn't have a gun, they would be alive now!


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming supply will remain the same as it is today.  It won't.  The price lowers demand and thus lowers supply
> 
> In fact, you'll likely see the price escalation keep guns out of the hands of the criminals and the youth.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If something costs 1 week's pay, it's pretty easy to get it.
> If something costs 3 week's pay, it's harder to get; agreed?
> 
> So the unemployed (a lot of criminals don't have a day job; nor do kids like Kleibold, Harris, and that A-Hole who shot up Sandy Hook, Va Tech, Gabby Giffords etc (I can't list all of the recent perps and their financial conditions but suffice to say that many are not hob nobbing with Bill Gates) won't be able to afford the weaponry they seek.
> 
> It will take quite a while but we really need to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And someone like me will start producing guns at a cost of 1.5 weeks pay and supply all the guns the private sector wants. Think Prohibition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, best of luck to you I guess.
Click to expand...


Well think about it.  If it costs say $200 to make a particular gun, then if you were successful in driving the legal price to $500, $1,000 or more then there's more and more incentive to manufacture them or import them and sell them.  Like with pot, cigarettes and everything else they try to warp market prices with taxes.

And again, who do you affect?  Honest citizens thinking long term buy fewer guns, but that doesn't phase criminals.  They are risking jail and crime anyway.  They aren't going to stop buying guns just because you raise the price.

All your solutions just continue the current policies which are catastrophic to honest citizens and a slap on the wrist to criminals, which means the criminals are armed, and they are the only ones.


----------



## kaz

editec said:


> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.



Think about this one ed.  So if I buy a gun to protect myself, then I and all other people who do so are the ones who have to pay the victims of the people we bought a gun to protect ourselves from.

You fundamentally don't understand the difference between people who commit criminal acts and victims of criminal acts.  Your solution is that if I want to buy a gun to protect myself from criminals, then I'm the one you're forcing to pay the victims of criminal acts for the crimes that were committed against them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2012 stats:
> 
> Fatal Car Crashes by Year, 25,580
> 
> Fatal Gun incidents  31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional
> 
> EVery one of us insures our vehicles because they might accidently kill somebody during the operation of our vehicles.  We SAFE DRIVERS pay and pay and pay because of those UNSAFE DRIVERS, do we not?
> 
> Why should GUN OWNERS not also have to insure themselves against accidental deaths or injury in the operation of their guns?
> 
> This is no intrusion of your right to own guns...it is merely the obligation one takes on when one decided to own a gun.
> 
> This will NOT solve the problem of illegal guns but it can and ought to be used to help the victims of gun incidents.
> 
> I believe that MANDATORY  INSURANCE ON GUNS is something this society needs to do.
> 
> It's long overdue, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the CDC, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2012.
> 
> Why would you compare automobile ... accidents ... with intentional use of firearms?
> 
> And even if you do include intentional use of firearms, the point is there are 11,078 people who were limited by government in their ability to defend themselves.  The point of the thread, read the op, is how do you keep guns from those 11,078 murderers?  A point you don't address at all.
> 
> Basically your point is a complete zero.
> 
> There's
Click to expand...


Most auto accidents are due to one or more drivers failing to obey the law - speeding, failing to yield, driving under the influence, etc.  

Homicide is not the only tort wherein a death or injury is the result of the use of a firearm; gun deaths by accident, negligence and foolishness, for example.

Why presume each murder was committed by only one individual - likely many murders are committed by one individual.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Umm, as they're are more limitations on firearms than here, they are, by definition, not as free as we are. For argument to be considred reasonably it should be able to be applied in other contexts. The bolded statement could and should just as easily read 'if everyone not having cars is what it takes to keep people from driving drun, I'm just fine with that.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.
> 
> And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.
Click to expand...


Guns are specifically designed to kill people.  That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved.  And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.  

There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.


----------



## RKMBrown

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.
> 
> And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are specifically designed to kill people.  That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved.  And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.
> 
> There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.
> 
> And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns are specifically designed to kill people.  That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved.  And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.
> 
> There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.
Click to expand...


You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the CDC, there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2012.
> 
> Why would you compare automobile ... accidents ... with intentional use of firearms?
> 
> And even if you do include intentional use of firearms, the point is there are 11,078 people who were limited by government in their ability to defend themselves.  The point of the thread, read the op, is how do you keep guns from those 11,078 murderers?  A point you don't address at all.
> 
> Basically your point is a complete zero.
> 
> There's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most auto accidents are due to one or more drivers failing to obey the law - speeding, failing to yield, driving under the influence, etc.
Click to expand...


There's a difference between failing to follow the law and it causing an unintended death (probably of themselves more than anyone else), and intentionally murdering someone on purpose.



Wry Catcher said:


> Homicide is not the only tort wherein a death or injury is the result of the use of a firearm; gun deaths by accident, negligence and foolishness, for example.



And of the people killed in accidents, guns is a small percentage.  One of our astute posters pointed out that 4 times as many kids are killed accidentally by being poisoned.  Why are guns being singled out for the requirement when it's well down the list of causes.



Wry Catcher said:


> Why presume each murder was committed by only one individual - likely many murders are committed by one individual.



I didn't think it was necessary to point out that obvious point as it was obvious and it doesn't change anything related to the argument.  I still don't think it was necessary.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again your position is entirely irrational. I'm sure I could find many things in your home there are no good reason for you to have. Should we ban those things too? And your car argument is rather selfish. Your basically saying since it would inconvenience you we shouldn't ban cars. Even though they are involved in far more injuries and death than guns.
> 
> And could we stop the melodrama? They aren't murder devices. They are for whatever the user deems they are for. I own plenty of guns. None of them are used for, nor do I have any intention of murdering anyone with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are specifically designed to kill people.  That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved.  And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.
> 
> There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.
Click to expand...

Which gun company will be the first to build guns that target democrats?


----------



## JoeB131

RKMBrown said:


> [
> 
> Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.



The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!! 

And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers. 

10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.



I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.  

And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.  

Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.
> 
> 10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.
Click to expand...


1)  How many guns have been used to kill a person?

2)  How many guns have been used to shoot skeet (or other target practice)?

3)  how many guns have been carried in case they're needed for defense?

4)  how many guns have been used to hunt?

1 is totally dwarfed by 2, 3 AND 4.  You know nothing about what you're talking about, then you never do.  Obviously you're projecting.  One day there'll be another mass shooting in Utah or a Jewish section of New York.  They'll blow away the shooter, and coincidentally, you'll stop posting...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.
> 
> And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.
> 
> Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.
Click to expand...


So what about instead of repeating your mindless drivel that doesn't contradict the op, you address the question in the op?

When we can't keep pot, which is totally illegal, out of the hands of any high schoolers anywhere, how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals everywhere?

All you're doing is making sure that all 32,000 people die without being able to defend themselves.  How many would be alive if leftists like you didn't value your pompous sanctimony over their lives?


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

kaz said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't define "Freedom" as letting people have murder devices in their homes.
> 
> While there are good reasons for most Americans to have cars, there is NO good reason for you as a private citizen to have a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People want to protect their loved ones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does Joe, he wants to protect government.
Click to expand...


He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.
> 
> And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.
> 
> Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.
Click to expand...


Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.

Moron.


----------



## kaz

QuickHitCurepon said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> People want to protect their loved ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does Joe, he wants to protect government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.
Click to expand...


Think about it...


----------



## kaz

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.
> 
> And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.
> 
> Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Technically, he's not a moron, he's a liberal.

You have to think like a leftist to get this one.

1)  19,000 people killed themselves with guns.

2)  Joe doesn't like guns.

3)  Therefore, to a leftist, guns caused the deaths, and if the guns hadn't bee there...

... no deaths!  Bada boom bada bing.  Get it now?

OK, I concede the moron thing...


----------



## candycorn

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.
> 
> 10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.
Click to expand...


Correct.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.
> 
> 10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...


So why don't you address my point then.

More guns shoot targets (skeet, trap, ...) than kill anyone.

More guns are carried for defense than kill anyone.  Since it does say shooting, let's consider the firing range here.

More guns are used for hunting than kill anyone.

So, listing three things that are more common for shooters than killing people, how can killing people be the #1 use of shooting guns?

Frankly if Joe thinks the #1 use of guns is "killing" people, then for once I hope he's a liar when he says he was in the military.  I come from a military family and the guy's views of guns is sick.  You're just a liberal elitist who lives in a vacuum from reality.  No offense.


----------



## candycorn

I heard the fed background checks will stop at midnight and gun sales should stop. 

Silver lining.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

kaz said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So does Joe, he wants to protect government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about it...
Click to expand...


Is this a riddle? Government and guns!


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Guns are specifically designed to kill people.  That's why they were invented, that is why they are constantly being improved.  And the gun companies are introducing deadlier weapons every year.



This is pure ignorance on your part. Guns are designed to fire bullets. Many bullets are designed to injur, though not all. Though again, at the end of the day, what someone else intended for a gun to do is entirely irrelevant. I ultimately decide what it's going to be used for. Despite what you say the fact that the vast majority of firearms in fact are NOT used to kill people proves you wrong.   



JoeB131 said:


> There is no good reason for an average citizen who is not involved in security or law enforcement to have a gun.



I don't need to have a 'good' reason (an entirely subjective statement in the first place). Need is an irrelevant argument. We don't live in a society where we're only allowed to posses the things we need to survive. Given the statistics on gun related injuries and death compared to other things you seemingly don't have a problem with it is the reverse that is true. There is no good reason I should NOT be allowed to have a gun(s).


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.
> 
> 10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.
Click to expand...


Again that's simply factually incorrect. Prove your numbers. Most guns are still used for hunting. That's what all of mine or for. Same goes for pretty much every gun owner I know.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.
> 
> And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.
> 
> Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.
Click to expand...


Again that's if you count suicides which make up nearly two thirds of that 32,000. If there's one death where the object used is completely irrelevant, it's suicides. Now you have cars which are involved in nearly 35,000 deaths a year. More than guns even counting suicides. This clearly proves your point that intended use means something simply incorrect. That an object not designed to kill still winds up killing more people than something you claim is made to kill. Where is your outrage at the auto makers for making such clearly deadly devices?


----------



## RKMBrown

I use my guns & bows for hunting. Haven't used my guns to kill anyone yet. But then we don't have many democrats around here so there isn't much of a reason to shoot people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Wrong.  Guns are designed to fire bullets.  People kill people, guns are just a tool they use.  Has your inability to distinguish between inanimate objects and people been diagnosed yet?  I hope there's a drug they can give you to clear that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.
> 
> 10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...

Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number one reason why you'd WANT to fire a bullet is to kill a person.  That's what they are designed for. That's why most targets on shooting ranges look like - PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And frankly, that's how the gun manufacturers are marketting them. As people killers.
> 
> 10 years ago, 50% of guns sold were sold as hunting weapons.   That number has dropped to 25%, as the focus is now on how effectively they kill... people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.
Click to expand...


Only...10000


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only...10000
Click to expand...


Ayup and not one of those murders would have been stopped by making gun ownership illegal. The vast majority of those murders are by democrats. You want to stop the murders? Make being a democrat illegal.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only...10000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayup and not one of those murders would have been stopped by making gun ownership illegal. The vast majority of those murders are by democrats. You want to stop the murders? Make being a democrat illegal.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only...10000
Click to expand...


Yes, compared to roughly 35,000 deaths by auto accidents. Again, where's the outrage? Where's the stigmatization of people who have the audacity to own automobiles when there are that many death's each year?


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only...10000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup and not one of those murders would have been stopped by making gun ownership illegal. The vast majority of those murders are by democrats. You want to stop the murders? Make being a democrat illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Don't know how to google or in denial?

Easy Access to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports


----------



## MisterBeale

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup and not one of those murders would have been stopped by making gun ownership illegal. The vast majority of those murders are by democrats. You want to stop the murders? Make being a democrat illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know how to google or in denial?
> 
> Easy Access to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports
Click to expand...


At first I didn't get what you were saying with this link, parsing data is not my forte'.  But then I got it.  No where in this data base does it give the political leanings of the perp. You are making a small leap in judgement to say that black men between the ages of 18 to 49 are going to be disproportionately Democratic, if this particular segment of society actually even bothered to register and vote, which I find doubtful at best.  

However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point.  That demographic _usually_ votes Democratic.  The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat.  But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat. 

How about we just follow the 2nd Amendment.  There is no need to sink to this level once the opposition is just this thick.  They don't like the 2nd Amendment, they can research and proceed with Amending the constitution if they think they have a shot.  At the point where you are offering up Reductio Ad Absurdum, they are beyond the point of being reasoned with.  No need to go there. 

_*Reductio Ad Absurdum*_
[Latin, Reduction to absurdity.] In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Leading causes of death. I don't see firearms on there anywhere.

FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Leading causes of death. I don't see firearms on there anywhere.
> 
> FASTSTATS - Leading Causes of Death



Ohh look homicides from all types are not even in the top 15 causes of death in the US.

Homicide no longer a top cause of death in U.S. - NBC News.com


----------



## RKMBrown

MisterBeale said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how to google or in denial?
> 
> Easy Access to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first I didn't get what you were saying with this link, parsing data is not my forte'.  But then I got it.  No where in this data base does it give the political leanings of the perp. You are making a small leap in judgement to say that black men between the ages of 18 to 49 are going to be disproportionately Democratic, if this particular segment of society actually even bothered to register and vote, which I find doubtful at best.
> 
> However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point.  That demographic _usually_ votes Democratic.  The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat.  But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.
> 
> How about we just follow the 2nd Amendment.  There is no need to sink to this level once the opposition is just this thick.  They don't like the 2nd Amendment, they can research and proceed with Amending the constitution if they think they have a shot.  At the point where you are offering up Reductio Ad Absurdum, they are beyond the point of being reasoned with.  No need to go there.
> 
> _*Reductio Ad Absurdum*_
> [Latin, Reduction to absurdity.] In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.
Click to expand...


Democrat districts were shown to not only register nearly 100% of the population but then they managed to get nearly 100% turnout in contested districts. Maybe it does pay to buy votes. For the record I don't think its skin color that leads to crime, and democrat voting, I think its culture.


----------



## candycorn

RKMBrown said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how to google or in denial?
> 
> Easy Access to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At first I didn't get what you were saying with this link, parsing data is not my forte'.  But then I got it.  No where in this data base does it give the political leanings of the perp. You are making a small leap in judgement to say that black men between the ages of 18 to 49 are going to be disproportionately Democratic, if this particular segment of society actually even bothered to register and vote, which I find doubtful at best.
> 
> However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point.  That demographic _usually_ votes Democratic.  The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat.  But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.
> 
> How about we just follow the 2nd Amendment.  There is no need to sink to this level once the opposition is just this thick.  They don't like the 2nd Amendment, they can research and proceed with Amending the constitution if they think they have a shot.  At the point where you are offering up Reductio Ad Absurdum, they are beyond the point of being reasoned with.  No need to go there.
> 
> _*Reductio Ad Absurdum*_
> [Latin, Reduction to absurdity.] In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrat districts were shown to not only register nearly 100% of the population but then they managed to get nearly 100% turnout in contested districts. Maybe it does pay to buy votes. For the record I don't think its skin color that leads to crime, and democrat voting, I think its culture.
Click to expand...


So since nearly all of the recent mass murderers were white, can we assume they were republicans?

You're sick.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> 1)  How many guns have been used to kill a person?
> 
> 2)  How many guns have been used to shoot skeet (or other target practice)?
> 
> 3)  how many guns have been carried in case they're needed for defense?
> 
> 4)  how many guns have been used to hunt?
> 
> 1 is totally dwarfed by 2, 3 AND 4.  You know nothing about what you're talking about, then you never do.  Obviously you're projecting.  One day there'll be another mass shooting in Utah or a Jewish section of New York.  They'll blow away the shooter, and coincidentally, you'll stop posting...



Guy, why do you keep going on about "the jews".   I don't. 

Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.   

And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit. 

We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> So what about instead of repeating your mindless drivel that doesn't contradict the op, you address the question in the op?
> 
> When we can't keep pot, which is totally illegal, out of the hands of any high schoolers anywhere, how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals everywhere?
> 
> All you're doing is making sure that all 32,000 people die without being able to defend themselves.  How many would be alive if leftists like you didn't value your pompous sanctimony over their lives?



Do you know why we can't keep pot out of the hands of kids?  

No one cares enough to enforce the laws, which are kind of stupid.  

Of those 32K who die, 19K kill themselves, and 1000 die from accidents.  

of the 12,000 who die of murder, most are murdered because a gun was easily accessable to someone else in the household or during an argument.  

Criminals AREN'T REALLY THE PROBLEM.  We are.  

Look, guy, the fact is, Germany, Japan, the UK, Canada, Italy and France ALL limite who can own guns, and guess what. 

They have nowhere near our murder rate. 
They have nowhere near our crime rate.
They have nowhere near our incarceration rate.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You are so full of Shinola.   So you think the world operates according to the same logic as you with a gun in a room full of Mormons and Jews, do you?  Once again, you have no knowledge of what you're talking about.  Gun companies are being designed to protect people and for sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.
> 
> And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.
> 
> Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.
> 
> Moron.
Click to expand...


Most of those gun suicides wouldn't happen if guns weren't available.  

And, no, the record for gun murders was 11,101 in 2012.  

Comapred to 11 in Japan, 48 in the United Kingdom, 258 in Germany...


----------



## Steven_R

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1)  How many guns have been used to kill a person?
> 
> 2)  How many guns have been used to shoot skeet (or other target practice)?
> 
> 3)  how many guns have been carried in case they're needed for defense?
> 
> 4)  how many guns have been used to hunt?
> 
> 1 is totally dwarfed by 2, 3 AND 4.  You know nothing about what you're talking about, then you never do.  Obviously you're projecting.  One day there'll be another mass shooting in Utah or a Jewish section of New York.  They'll blow away the shooter, and coincidentally, you'll stop posting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, why do you keep going on about "the jews".   I don't.
> 
> Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.
> 
> And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.
> 
> We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.
Click to expand...


Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.


----------



## JoeB131

Steven_R said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.
> 
> And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.
> 
> We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does.  

But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).  

Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.  

So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns, 

Only licensed people would have them. 
They'd have to have insurance. 
There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused. 
There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.
> 
> And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.
> 
> We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...


But we don't ban doctors. We don't ban cars. We don't ban cholesterol. All of which are involved in more deaths than guns.  In the cases of hospitals, those steps are taken because of the deaths they cause. Safety is focused on in cars because of the deaths they are involved. Has it ever occured to you the reason more safety precautions aren't taken with firearms is there overall threat to people is relatively miniscule? Again this for a device that you claim is designed only to kill people.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't ban doctors. We don't ban cars. We don't ban cholesterol. All of which are involved in more deaths than guns.  In the cases of hospitals, those steps are taken because of the deaths they cause. Safety is focused on in cars because of the deaths they are involved. Has it ever occured to you the reason more safety precautions aren't taken with firearms is there overall threat to people is relatively miniscule? Again this for a device that you claim is designed only to kill people.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why only qualified professionals should have them. 

We don't let every asshole in the world perform surgery and prescribe drugs. We only let TRAINED, LICENSED professionals do it. 

And frankly, that's what should be done with guns.  

1) You have to show a really good reason why you need one.
2) You have to be trained licensed and insured.
3) If you are involved in misconduct, the privilages are REVOKED. 

Which is pretty much how they do it in the rest of the industrialized world, and it works just fine. 

Only in the US do we say, "Yup, Cleetus, the Founding Fathers told up we could bear arms, and arm bears, yup, yup, yup."


----------



## Steven_R

It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.

But I'm willing to compromise.

I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.

Want to buy a book? Show need.
Want to go to church? Get a license.
Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
Want to vote? Pass a test.

Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.


----------



## kaz

QuickHitCurepon said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said that there's no reason to own a gun. I don't know what that has to do with government exactly. Guns ownership works independently of government, when the law is not involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this a riddle? Government and guns!
Click to expand...


Go back and read the quote, I was saying that Joe loves government...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, there are approximately 300 million firearms in private hands and millions more in government police and security hands, yet only about 10000 murders a year. The VAST majority of firearms are NEVER fired in anger or at ANYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only...10000
Click to expand...




Wow, that was so witty...   

Not.

He addresses your point on the percentage of guns, and you play the redefine words game.  I guess we should have known better than to have a grown up conversation with a poster who called "candycane."


----------



## JoeB131

Steven_R said:


> It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.
> 
> But I'm willing to compromise.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.
> 
> Want to buy a book? Show need.
> Want to go to church? Get a license.
> Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
> Want to vote? Pass a test.
> 
> Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.



I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".  

I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.  

Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.  

In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.  

Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one. 

The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.
> 
> But I'm willing to compromise.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.
> 
> Want to buy a book? Show need.
> Want to go to church? Get a license.
> Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
> Want to vote? Pass a test.
> 
> Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".
> 
> I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.
> 
> In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.
> 
> Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you think, bitch.  The SCOTUS thinks we DO have the right to bear arms.

Suck on it.


----------



## kaz

MisterBeale said:


> However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point.  That demographic _usually_ votes Democratic.  The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat.  But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.



Yet another reason liberals like Candy oppose voter ID laws.  It disenfranchises the criminal vote, who are less likely to have a valid ID, who vote strongly in favor of gun laws.  It's like when I lived in California and they had a vote to legalize Indian Casinos.  The socons teamed up with the Vegas casinos to oppose it.  The Vegas casinos because they didn't want the competition.  Criminals want to keep them illegal so they can sell them.  Just like alcohol in prohibition and drugs today.  The socons are law and order, the criminals are just law...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1)  How many guns have been used to kill a person?
> 
> 2)  How many guns have been used to shoot skeet (or other target practice)?
> 
> 3)  how many guns have been carried in case they're needed for defense?
> 
> 4)  how many guns have been used to hunt?
> 
> 1 is totally dwarfed by 2, 3 AND 4.  You know nothing about what you're talking about, then you never do.  Obviously you're projecting.  One day there'll be another mass shooting in Utah or a Jewish section of New York.  They'll blow away the shooter, and coincidentally, you'll stop posting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, why do you keep going on about "the jews".   I don't.
> 
> Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.
> 
> And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.
> 
> We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.
Click to expand...


Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.

But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Do you know why we can't keep pot out of the hands of kids?
> 
> No one cares enough to enforce the laws, which are kind of stupid



That statement is stupid.  Government spends billions on Coast Guard, airlines, police and committing incredible intrusions into our freedom and privacy arresting drug dealers, going after money laundering.  Nobody's trying?  You're just trying to clear the incredible hurdle of looking more and more clueless with every post.

The reason drug laws don't work is because the PEOPLE don't respect them.  As an authoritarian, you won't grasp that, but it's the same with guns.  No one will respect the laws except liberals who already oppose gun laws.  And in typical do as I say not as I do, they'll probably buy them too.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been in a room full of Mormons with a gun and didn't shoot a one of them.
> 
> And I was in the military for 11 years.  Probably handled more weapons than most of you nutters dream about.
> 
> Reality- we have 32,000 gun deaths a year, usually because people who should never have had a gun had access to one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of those gun suicides wouldn't happen if guns weren't available.
Click to expand...


Talk about word parsing.  Even if you were right there would be fewer "gun suicides,"  suicide by poison, hanging and jumping is so much better for society...


----------



## kaz

Steven_R said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1)  How many guns have been used to kill a person?
> 
> 2)  How many guns have been used to shoot skeet (or other target practice)?
> 
> 3)  how many guns have been carried in case they're needed for defense?
> 
> 4)  how many guns have been used to hunt?
> 
> 1 is totally dwarfed by 2, 3 AND 4.  You know nothing about what you're talking about, then you never do.  Obviously you're projecting.  One day there'll be another mass shooting in Utah or a Jewish section of New York.  They'll blow away the shooter, and coincidentally, you'll stop posting...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, why do you keep going on about "the jews".   I don't.
> 
> Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.
> 
> And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.
> 
> We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
Click to expand...


Bee stings kill 5,000 people a year, that's two 9/11s.  Let's destroy bees!  Bees are al qaeda!


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong 19000 of them are suicides which would have occurred with or without a firearm. once again accidental deaths are caused by more deadly things then guns in larger numbers. only around 800 accidental deaths occur a year. That leaves about 11000 murders by firearms and if I am not mistaken the last year with records it was 9000. Out of 310 MILLION people.
> 
> Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those gun suicides wouldn't happen if guns weren't available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about word parsing.  Even if you were right there would be fewer "gun suicides,"  suicide by poison, hanging and jumping is so much better for society...
Click to expand...


they are like that on most topics 

why expect any different on the topic of suicide


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...


So if we put the same additional effort into ending medical malpractice, there is the potential to save many more lives!

But seriously, you're begging the question again.  The question is how you're going to actually start making gun laws work, you just keep assuming the truth of your own position they do.  And the reality is you're advocating murdering people by preventing them from defending themselves.


----------



## Steven_R

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.
> 
> But I'm willing to compromise.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.
> 
> Want to buy a book? Show need.
> Want to go to church? Get a license.
> Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
> Want to vote? Pass a test.
> 
> Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".
> 
> I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.
> 
> In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.
> 
> Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't they pass the smell test? In Germany, Scientology isn't considered an approved religion. Many European nations have censored books, or don't allow sales of banned books. Certain political parties or speech are illegal in parts of Europe. 

Either rights mean something or they don't. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association are all basic human rights that Europeans have only at the pleasure of their governments. What are your feelings on those restrictions?

I don't pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights I like and which ones are politically expendable. I love them all and fight for them all just as fervently as I do the Second.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms"



Hey Joe,  funny how they wrote a 1st and a 3rd through 10th amendments and skipped the second one, isn't it?  I never got that either, wtf?



JoeB131 said:


> I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test



Here's what doesn't pass the smell test.



JoeB131 said:


> The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.



The founding fathers wrote in the bill of rights, which protect individual freedoms from government, that GOVERNMENT can't deprive itself of the right to bear arms.  Talk about the smell test, that argument reeks.



I'm sure they were sweating the idea that government might take away it's own guns until they came up with that one...


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't ban doctors. We don't ban cars. We don't ban cholesterol. All of which are involved in more deaths than guns.  In the cases of hospitals, those steps are taken because of the deaths they cause. Safety is focused on in cars because of the deaths they are involved. Has it ever occured to you the reason more safety precautions aren't taken with firearms is there overall threat to people is relatively miniscule? Again this for a device that you claim is designed only to kill people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why only qualified professionals should have them.
> 
> We don't let every asshole in the world perform surgery and prescribe drugs. We only let TRAINED, LICENSED professionals do it.
> 
> And frankly, that's what should be done with guns.
> 
> 1) You have to show a really good reason why you need one.
> 2) You have to be trained licensed and insured.
> 3) If you are involved in misconduct, the privilages are REVOKED.
> 
> Which is pretty much how they do it in the rest of the industrialized world, and it works just fine.
> 
> Only in the US do we say, "Yup, Cleetus, the Founding Fathers told up we could bear arms, and arm bears, yup, yup, yup."
Click to expand...


Again none of the above is true. And the facts simply don't support your postion. 1) 'good reason' is entirely subjective. I think haveing a efficient tool to gather meat is a good reason. And doesn't your number one criteria negate two and three? You've already stated you don't think there is a good reason for anyone but law enforcement and military to have guns. Again this need is sort of selfish of you if you think about it. You know that automobiles kill more people but since it would inconvenience you to ban those your not suggesting that. Basically telling us those deaths are acceptable given the inconvenience to you of not having one.  Though I don't want to get hung up on this because again I don't need a good reason. The statistics show that the overhwhelming majority of gun owners don't kill or use their guns in violence toward other people. More people are more dangerous with their cars than guns. Those statistics reflect that the reality is a there no good reason for a law abiding citizen NOT to be allowed to possess a gun.


----------



## MisterBeale

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.
> 
> But I'm willing to compromise.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.
> 
> Want to buy a book? Show need.
> Want to go to church? Get a license.
> Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
> Want to vote? Pass a test.
> 
> Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".
> 
> I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.
> 
> In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.
> 
> Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.
Click to expand...


What are you even doing posting in a thread when you haven't even a basic college education on the bill of rights?  Facts are facts, and you have yours wrong.  I can see now I don't need to read any of your posts any more.  You need to go back to school buddy.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a human right to have the means to defend oneself and doesn't need to have approval from some state official to do so.
> 
> But I'm willing to compromise.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to require permission and licenses and training and all those other arbitrary bureaucratic hoops you want gun owners to jump through provided those same standards are applied to every other civil right.
> 
> Want to buy a book? Show need.
> Want to go to church? Get a license.
> Involved in misconduct? Freedom of speech is revoked.
> Want to vote? Pass a test.
> 
> Rights mean something or they mean nothing. Dancing around in statistics and the blood of dead kids to make an emotional appeal is all well and good, but at the end of the day the right to keep and bear arms means something or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept that there's a right to "bear Arms".
> 
> I used to, but frankly, the reasons you guys give for why you want guns doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> Only 200 cases of "Self-Defense" Homicide were recorded by the FBI in 2011 involving guns.
> 
> In that same year, we had 11,101 homicides with guns, 19,500 suicides and 800 accidental shootings.
> 
> Which means a gun is 160 times more likely to cause a wrongful death than a righteous one.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about Militias, not personal gun ownership.
Click to expand...


Why do you base your opinion on whether someone should have a gun, or anything for that matter, on whether they need it? We live in a country where we have the freedom to pursue wants, not needs. Look at what you're really saying when you say that. You're essentially saying you don't believe in individual freedom. To have individual freedom I need to have the capacity to defend myself. You're also saying you don't believe in that either. The second ammendment is not about just militias. Read some of the Federalist papers about the subject. Hamilton in Federalist 29 said

_What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year._

Madison in Federalist 46 wrote:

_"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."_ 

In Federalist 28 he confirms the right of people to defend themselves against tyranical government;

_The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!_ 

All of this points to the fact that purpose of the second ammendment was for the right to defend oneself, primarily against tyrannical government. And another point of evidence is that it is the SECOND ammendment. Only second to the freedom of speech was the right to defend one's individual freedom.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point.  That demographic _usually_ votes Democratic.  The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat.  But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another reason liberals like Candy oppose voter ID laws.  It disenfranchises the criminal vote, who are less likely to have a valid ID, who vote strongly in favor of gun laws.  It's like when I lived in California and they had a vote to legalize Indian Casinos.  The socons teamed up with the Vegas casinos to oppose it.  The Vegas casinos because they didn't want the competition.  Criminals want to keep them illegal so they can sell them.  Just like alcohol in prohibition and drugs today.  The socons are law and order, the criminals are just law...
Click to expand...


I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.  

You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## candycorn

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Fact is, we kill 32,000 Americans a year.  Every year, we have 10 9/11's.
> 
> And while we've turned our lives upside down in response to the 9/11 attack, the equivlent to 120 9/11's hasn't changed our life in one bit.
> 
> We should be thankful that Al Qaeda doesn't have Wayne LaPeirre as a Lobbyist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...


Stop making sense.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, being a political scientist, I have to give you props, good point.  That demographic _usually_ votes Democratic.  The slight majority of those murders are indeed probably committed by people who would, if they were political at all, vote democrat.  But that is akin to saying, if Al Capone or Charlie Manson were political, they might vote Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another reason liberals like Candy oppose voter ID laws.  It disenfranchises the criminal vote, who are less likely to have a valid ID, who vote strongly in favor of gun laws.  It's like when I lived in California and they had a vote to legalize Indian Casinos.  The socons teamed up with the Vegas casinos to oppose it.  The Vegas casinos because they didn't want the competition.  Criminals want to keep them illegal so they can sell them.  Just like alcohol in prohibition and drugs today.  The socons are law and order, the criminals are just law...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one.  Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates.  You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.

Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making sense.
Click to expand...


No it does not make sense.  Doctors/Surgeons perform procedures, they get licensed.  However, I can buy a knife without a license, I can use that knife to cut celery, or to defend myself.  I don't need training or a license to do either.

Police get training because they perform procedures, they get licensed.  However, I can buy a gun without a license, I can use that gun for decoration, or sell it for profit, or for fun, or to defend myself.  I don't need training or a license to do either, though training and licenses are available if I so desire.

You two are grossly confused because you are incapable of discerning the difference between an inanimate object, such as a knife, gun, or other weapons, and self determining human beings that perform licensed tasks for their customers.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medical malpractice alone kills 100,000+ people. That's 30 9/11's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop making sense.
Click to expand...


Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

kaz said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a riddle? Government and guns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read the quote, I was saying that Joe loves government...
Click to expand...


You asked me about that. How would I know; I'm a newby? Better question, how would you know? He could be putting on a "good" show to advance his fanatic anti-gun agenda.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> But you know what, we also take a LOT of steps to prevent malpractice. We license doctors.  We allow doctors who screw up to be sued.  We allow drug companies to be sued over the side effects of their products. (Remember Phen-Fen and Redux).
> 
> Hospitals themselves take measures to prevent mistakes.  For instance, when I had my leg operated on in 2007, no less than SIX people had me verify that it was the LEFT leg that needed the operation and not the right leg.
> 
> So honestly, if we were practicing the same philosophy towards guns,
> 
> Only licensed people would have them.
> They'd have to have insurance.
> There would be constant checks to make sure they weren't being misused.
> There would be efforts to make the product LESS dangerous, as opposed to guns which are being made MORE dangerous by the gun manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.
Click to expand...


Yeah, after all, what's the problem.

We only murder 10,000 people a year in this country...

If you're an average person, you may meet 10,000 people in your lifetime according to some estimates...

Imagine all of them dead.  That is the yearly reality of our gun violence non-problem.  

And your response?

If you get shot, it's your fault for not shooting the other guy first...is that just about it?


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, after all, what's the problem.
> 
> We only murder 10,000 people a year in this country...
> 
> If you're an average person, you may meet 10,000 people in your lifetime according to some estimates...
> 
> Imagine all of them dead.  That is the yearly reality of our gun violence non-problem.
> 
> And your response?
> 
> If you get shot, it's your fault for not shooting the other guy first...is that just about it?
Click to expand...

I'm fifty years old. I know two people who decided to end their lives, both used a gun.  They did not need any training to figure out how to do it.

I've never met, nor do I know anyone that was killed or even shot with a gun by another person outside of military personnel.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another reason liberals like Candy oppose voter ID laws.  It disenfranchises the criminal vote, who are less likely to have a valid ID, who vote strongly in favor of gun laws.  It's like when I lived in California and they had a vote to legalize Indian Casinos.  The socons teamed up with the Vegas casinos to oppose it.  The Vegas casinos because they didn't want the competition.  Criminals want to keep them illegal so they can sell them.  Just like alcohol in prohibition and drugs today.  The socons are law and order, the criminals are just law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one.  Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates.  You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.
> 
> Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.
Click to expand...


Overtly authoratarian?  

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.  

If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong.  What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).  

The responses have been laughable at best.  The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.

Yet that is your response.  

It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out.  Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right.  And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system.  Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000?  What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?

I guess some minds are just closed to logic.  Too bad.

Out.


----------



## Edgetho

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one.  Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates.  You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.
> 
> Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overtly authoratarian?
> 
> Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong.  What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).
> 
> The responses have been laughable at best.  The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.
> 
> Yet that is your response.
> 
> It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out.  Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right.  And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system.  Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000?  What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?
> 
> I guess some minds are just closed to logic.  Too bad.
> 
> Out.
Click to expand...


It is your mind that is closed.

Of the 10,000 deaths you mention, how many were caused by LEGAL Gun Owners LEGALLY Carrying a LEGAL gun?

A fraction.  Maybe 1% - 2%.  If that.

What pisses us off is that you, and your idiot fellow-travelers, refuse to address the other 98%.

How about enforcing the Laws we already have?  There's a thought.  How about it?

Especially in the high-crime, everybody's got a Mac-10, gang-banger ghettos that produce NOTHING but violence and obama voters......

Do something about that and we'll talk.

Until then, you're just another dishonest dimocrap scumbag douche


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one.  Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates.  You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.
> 
> Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overtly authoratarian?
> 
> Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong.  What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).
> 
> The responses have been laughable at best.  The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.
> 
> Yet that is your response.
> 
> It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out.  Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right.  And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system.  Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000?  What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?
> 
> I guess some minds are just closed to logic.  Too bad.
> 
> Out.
Click to expand...


350,000,000 / 10000 = 3500

That means by average 1 in 3500 people are murdered with a gun.  It also means 1 in 3500 guns will be used to commit a murder.  

I'm gonna guess you don't understand statistics.  Now recognize that all of those murders are committed by criminals.  Yes, murder is against the law.  None of those murders are committed by non-criminals.

So what you are doing is trying to punish 3499 people because 1 in 3500 is a criminal that might use 1 of 3500 guns to commit the crime of murder.  Further you think it's because guns have a mind of their own and transform 1 in 3500 into a criminal.


----------



## kaz

QuickHitCurepon said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a riddle? Government and guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the quote, I was saying that Joe loves government...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked me about that. How would I know; I'm a newby? Better question, how would you know? He could be putting on a "good" show to advance his fanatic anti-gun agenda.
Click to expand...


Joe always loves government, it's not just guns.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of you are making any sense. Your liability insurance idea was shown to make no sense. The emotional, irrational, dispraportionate response the two of you have to guns is the defintion of having no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, after all, what's the problem.
> 
> We only murder 10,000 people a year in this country...
> 
> If you're an average person, you may meet 10,000 people in your lifetime according to some estimates...
> 
> Imagine all of them dead.  That is the yearly reality of our gun violence non-problem.
> 
> And your response?
> 
> If you get shot, it's your fault for not shooting the other guy first...is that just about it?
Click to expand...


No. My point is you don't take guns away, financially impede them or negatively stigmatize tens of millions of law abiding gun owners to an extremely naive attempt to prevent 10,000 deaths. Like it or not that is NO different than saying we should do the exact same thing to people who have the audacity to own cars because they kill THREE TIMES as many people a year. Proving your position on guns is irrational and dispoportionate to their impact on society relative to other things that are involved in the same number deaths each year.

What is more bothersome than your position on guns, candy, is that your argument is inconsistent. You don't apply the same rationale to other things that are statistically comparable in terms of the deaths they cause. That should be proof enough for anyone that you have an illegitimate argument.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.
> 
> Yet that is your response.


No, that is your delusion.  What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Either your mind is closed or your ears are, because this point has been addressed repeatedly and that was never the argument.  In fact, the point is she WON'T do that, not that she will.

Criminals are going to go behind wal mart to buy an illegal gun, and they aren't going to be dissuaded by a couple hundred bucks.  Your woman may not know about vic, but you're condemning her to become one one.



candycorn said:


> It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year



Once again, you are begging the question.  I'm tired of explaining that logical fallacy to you, google it this time.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

kaz said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the quote, I was saying that Joe loves government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me about that. How would I know; I'm a newby? Better question, how would you know? He could be putting on a "good" show to advance his fanatic anti-gun agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe always loves government, it's not just guns.
Click to expand...


He loves mental masturbation too!


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you ten posts where I favor Voter ID laws.
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing I said "liberals like" candy and not candy since I wasn't sure about your personal position on that one.  Though you're pretty silent on the voter ID debates.  You may have chimed in here and there, I don't doubt the ten, but you're not adding much to arguing with liberals they are wrong.
> 
> Interesting that you and Joe are more overtly authoritarian even than other liberals and you're the ones arguing government the guns here the most strenuously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Overtly authoratarian?
> 
> Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> If I were saying we should go house to house and remove all weaponry, yes, I'd be wrong.  What I'm recommending is a market solution to the "non-problem" of 10,000 killings a year (basically a number equivalent to everyone you'll meet in your life according to some estimates).
> 
> The responses have been laughable at best.  The idea that someone who drives the speed limit, doesn't shoplift when she could get away with it easily, doesn't cheat on her taxes, cleans out the fridge at work when it's her job and not in her job description, pays her bills on time, and doesn't even litter will all of the sudden get with Vic and Lou behind Wal Mart to buy an illegal arm if a gun that used to cost $357 now costs $557 is batshit crazy; that she'd even know about Vic and Lou is even a stretch.
> 
> Yet that is your response.
> 
> It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher) when other countries have it figured out.  Its also sad that you don't think we should change a law written before there were steet lamps, steam power, zippers, or peanut butter because...well gee; it's old so it must be right.  And it's cruel that you don't think that those who are victims of the groupthink in the first and second place deserve any sort of compensation that should be built into the system.  Would you fell differently if the gun death figure reached 20,000, 30,000?  What would be the tipping point for you to admit we have a problem?
> 
> I guess some minds are just closed to logic.  Too bad.
> 
> Out.
Click to expand...


you have zero business trying to persuade anyone that your position is logical. Your position is anything but that. You presume that 10,000 deaths would go to 0 if we don't let people have guns. That's false. Everyone, including you, knows that. We could also prevent 35,000 deaths if people weren't allowed to own cars. We could prevent a few hundred thousand deaths a year by legislating how much fatty food a person can consume. But we don't do those things in a free society. In a free society we accept that there are risks and don't try to legislate them all out of existence as doing so means you are no longer free.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> you have zero business trying to persuade anyone that your position is logical. Your position is anything but that. You presume that 10,000 deaths would go to 0 if we don't let people have guns. That's false, everyone including you, knows that.



Sadly, that's a typical liberal argument.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.



Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.   

I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.  

But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
Click to expand...


How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
Click to expand...


Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
Click to expand...


No idiot, the Israeli's immediately started ethnic cleansing days after they were given a homeland.

Too bad THEY weren't like Great Britain and controlled guns.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
Click to expand...


First of all, you can't count to three, did you get tired after two?

And second, you have no logical ability as hunting being "sadistic" doesn't support that shooting people is the #1 use of guns.  BTW, you're full of it.  You and Candy live across the hall from each other in Berkley where you look down on us non-coastal barbarians, don't you?  BTW, the #1 thing hunters learn to do is NOT shoot people.  That is paramount over actually shooting game.

And third, I pointed out that for defense, people go to the firing range where people aren't trying to kill anyone.  And you only addressed shooting at intruders, though your platitude was interesting.  OK, it wasn't, I was just trying to give you something.

You didn't do well in school, did you Joe?


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.
Click to expand...


Joe likes other people to kill his food for him because that's civilized.


----------



## Bern80

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe likes other people to kill his food for him because that's civilized.
Click to expand...


Now the way they prepare the meat for fast food joints, that I might consider sadistic. Though like you said, I'm sure joe never even considered that scarfing down a whopper.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.
Click to expand...



Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating?   Yeah. Sadistic.  

Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you can't count to three, did you get tired after two?
> 
> And second, you have no logical ability as hunting being "sadistic" doesn't support that shooting people is the #1 use of guns.  BTW, you're full of it.  You and Candy live across the hall from each other in Berkley where you look down on us non-coastal barbarians, don't you?  BTW, the #1 thing hunters learn to do is NOT shoot people.  That is paramount over actually shooting game.
> 
> And third, I pointed out that for defense, people go to the firing range where people aren't trying to kill anyone.  And you only addressed shooting at intruders, though your platitude was interesting.  OK, it wasn't, I was just trying to give you something.
> 
> You didn't do well in school, did you Joe?
Click to expand...


Nah, I just thought the target shooting was even more retarded than the other two, so I was trying not to embarrass you.  

Guns weren't invented to shoot targets. They were invented to kill people.   You know what most targets at target ranges look like?  PEOPLE!!!!









> You and Candy live across the hall from each other in Berkley where you look down on us non-coastal barbarians, don't you?



Yes. I really, really do look down on you non-coastal red state, inbred, bible thumping, gun toting morons who let the wealthy dismantled the country and ship it to fucking China.  

If there was only a way to keep you from breeding in the interest of evolution


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well, you do mention your opposition to either Jews defending themselves or stopping anyone who murders them.  If Jews die and don't defend themselves, do the math on the ultimate result.
> 
> But what about you stop deflecting and address the point?  I gave you three uses of guns that DWARF using guns to kill people, which you said is the #1 use of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.
Click to expand...


That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit. 

The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.  

It almost never fucking happens.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating?   Yeah. Sadistic.
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.
Click to expand...


You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat. By your rationale of 'hunting', sharks, lions, wolves, really any meat eater, is sadistic. I assume you're claiming to be a vegan seeing as how the things they do to the animals raised for meat for fast food joints is about as sadistic as it gets. That''s another reason I hunt. It's more humane than how you're avg. burger joint gets their meat. I know exactly where it's coming from and how it was processed. If one is going to consume meat, I find hunting to be far healthier and more human alternative than buying it.

Again your 'need' argument is not a legitmate argument. The statistics relative to other objects don't support your position. Given just the number of guns out there and people who posses them the chances that any one person will hurt someone with one are closer to zero than even one percent. Statistically you're more likely to acccidentally kill someone with your care than you are to intentionally kill someone with a gun. Again why your need argument is rather selfish since you're saying the deaths associated with car ownership are acceptable because people 'need' (which isn't true either) them. Sorry, you may not WANT me to have a gun, but you have no logical rationale to keep me from having one.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.
> 
> The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.
> 
> It almost never fucking happens.
Click to expand...


He is talking about how many times a gun prevented a crime from being perpetrated. A gun doesn't need to be fired to do that. If a perp. simply recognizes the danger to their own life simply by recognizing they could be shot, they are less likely to commit the crime. So if the number who died by justifiable homicide is 200, the number of crimes prevented because the potential victim had a gun is obvisouly much higher than that.


----------



## Steven_R

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.
> 
> The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.
> 
> It almost never fucking happens.
Click to expand...


Not every encounter where a good guy pulls a gun ends in a dead bad guy. Some end in just a wounding, some the bad guy is held until the police show up, some the bad guy runs.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat
Click to expand...


And you are a typical hunter.  Joe is a typical liberal.  He eats animals that were confined for their lives in small areas and murdered by someone else for him when their flesh was optimal for mass market consumption.  Then he looks down his nose at the heathens who "hunt" and kill their own food because that's unsavory.  He probably ate at McDonald's for lunch...


----------



## Steven_R

JoeB131 said:


> Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating?   Yeah. Sadistic.
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.



In 2010, 407,796 pounds of meat (1.6 million servings) were provided for the hungry by Virginia hunters. Hunters For The Hungry Now, that's food you didn't have to provide through food stamps or other tax payer programs. Not to mention it keeps a lot of deer from going through windshields (a real problem in rural areas by the way).

When I was a teenager, I used to provide for this family up the road from us that was hungry. I knew the dad and he was too proud to get food stamps, so I gave him a lot of venison every year. You know, the whole "we had a good season, too much for the freezer, hate to see it go to waste" dance. 

I know, I'm a barbarian.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat. By your rationale of 'hunting', sharks, lions, wolves, really any meat eater, is sadistic. I assume you're claiming to be a vegan seeing as how the things they do to the animals raised for meat for fast food joints is about as sadistic as it gets. That''s another reason I hunt. It's more humane than how you're avg. burger joint gets their meat. I know exactly where it's coming from and how it was processed. If one is going to consume meat, I find hunting to be far healthier and more human alternative than buying it.
> 
> Again your 'need' argument is not a legitmate argument. The statistics relative to other objects don't support your position. Given just the number of guns out there and people who posses them the chances that any one person will hurt someone with one are closer to zero than even one percent. Statistically you're more likely to acccidentally kill someone with your care than you are to intentionally kill someone with a gun. Again why your need argument is rather selfish since you're saying the deaths associated with car ownership are acceptable because people 'need' (which isn't true either) them. Sorry, you may not WANT me to have a gun, but you have no logical rationale to keep me from having one.



People really do need cars in this society, our entire civilization has been built around them for the last 60 years....  

Guns, not so much.  We could confiscate every gun in the country, and life really would go on, just fine.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are a typical hunter.  Joe is a typical liberal.  He eats animals that were confined for their lives in small areas and murdered by someone else for him when their flesh was optimal for mass market consumption.  Then he looks down his nose at the heathens who "hunt" and kill their own food because that's unsavory.  He probably ate at McDonald's for lunch...
Click to expand...


Actually, I ate at boston market for lunch, and had the assurance that my lunch was raised on a farm, kept free of disease, and humanely dispatched.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat. By your rationale of 'hunting', sharks, lions, wolves, really any meat eater, is sadistic. I assume you're claiming to be a vegan seeing as how the things they do to the animals raised for meat for fast food joints is about as sadistic as it gets. That''s another reason I hunt. It's more humane than how you're avg. burger joint gets their meat. I know exactly where it's coming from and how it was processed. If one is going to consume meat, I find hunting to be far healthier and more human alternative than buying it.
> 
> Again your 'need' argument is not a legitmate argument. The statistics relative to other objects don't support your position. Given just the number of guns out there and people who posses them the chances that any one person will hurt someone with one are closer to zero than even one percent. Statistically you're more likely to acccidentally kill someone with your care than you are to intentionally kill someone with a gun. Again why your need argument is rather selfish since you're saying the deaths associated with car ownership are acceptable because people 'need' (which isn't true either) them. Sorry, you may not WANT me to have a gun, but you have no logical rationale to keep me from having one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People really do need cars in this society, our entire civilization has been built around them for the last 60 years....
> 
> Guns, not so much.  We could confiscate every gun in the country, and life really would go on, just fine.
Click to expand...


So get an amendment to do that, that is the only way you can even begin to try.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat. By your rationale of 'hunting', sharks, lions, wolves, really any meat eater, is sadistic. I assume you're claiming to be a vegan seeing as how the things they do to the animals raised for meat for fast food joints is about as sadistic as it gets. That''s another reason I hunt. It's more humane than how you're avg. burger joint gets their meat. I know exactly where it's coming from and how it was processed. If one is going to consume meat, I find hunting to be far healthier and more human alternative than buying it.
> 
> Again your 'need' argument is not a legitmate argument. The statistics relative to other objects don't support your position. Given just the number of guns out there and people who posses them the chances that any one person will hurt someone with one are closer to zero than even one percent. Statistically you're more likely to acccidentally kill someone with your care than you are to intentionally kill someone with a gun. Again why your need argument is rather selfish since you're saying the deaths associated with car ownership are acceptable because people 'need' (which isn't true either) them. Sorry, you may not WANT me to have a gun, but you have no logical rationale to keep me from having one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People really do need cars in this society, our entire civilization has been built around them for the last 60 years....
> 
> Guns, not so much.  We could confiscate every gun in the country, and life really would go on, just fine.
Click to expand...


And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a typical hunter.  Joe is a typical liberal.  He eats animals that were confined for their lives in small areas and murdered by someone else for him when their flesh was optimal for mass market consumption.  Then he looks down his nose at the heathens who "hunt" and kill their own food because that's unsavory.  He probably ate at McDonald's for lunch...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I ate at boston market for lunch, and had the assurance that my lunch was raised on a farm, kept free of disease, and humanely dispatched.
Click to expand...


So what is humane about the way you get your meat and inhumane about the way i get meat? The animals I kill for meat are free their entire lives until I shoot them. The ones you eat are not.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Connecticut 

starts its ammunition certificate law

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/s...ation_for_ammunition_certificate_fillable.pdf


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating?   Yeah. Sadistic.
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.
Click to expand...


The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, the Zionists have been defending themselves in Palestine for 60 years now.
> 
> I don't think that they are making much progress, as the Palestinians still want to kill their sorry asses.
> 
> But to the point, Hunting is a sadistic sport and defensive gun uses almost never happen... so those arguments are down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.
> 
> The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.
> 
> It almost never fucking happens.
Click to expand...


So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?

Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.

Explain THAT, Joe!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.
> 
> The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.
> 
> It almost never fucking happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?
> 
> Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.
> 
> Explain THAT, Joe!
Click to expand...


Asking Joe to explain his premises would be like trying to stop a black hole from sucking space.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.
> 
> The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.
> 
> It almost never fucking happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?
> 
> Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.
> 
> Explain THAT, Joe!
Click to expand...


i dont know about that 

i have 973 articles where a gun was used in self defense this year 

in many instances the gun owner defended more then one person


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?



Not without an investment of TRILLIONS infrastructure to provide public transportation to get us all everywhere we'd want to go, along with the hundreds of millions in lost productivity and lost industry.  

We need cars.  We really do. Most industrialized nations have them. 

We don't need guns. We really don't.  Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.


----------



## JoeB131

jon_berzerk said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.
> 
> The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.
> 
> It almost never fucking happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?
> 
> Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.
> 
> Explain THAT, Joe!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont know about that
> 
> i have 973 articles where a gun was used in self defense this year
> 
> in many instances the gun owner defended more then one person
Click to expand...


They are all horseshit stories.  

Don't believe a one of them.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating?   Yeah. Sadistic.
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?
Click to expand...


Probably neither, since you were in his territory...  

But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need cars.  We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.
> 
> We don't need guns. We really don't.  Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.
Click to expand...


Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need cars.  We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.
> 
> We don't need guns. We really don't.  Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.
Click to expand...


32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries are not a "good thing".   

Wheeling dead children out of schools because someone went on a rampage after buying a gun even though he was batshit crazy is not a "good thing".  


you have a very strange notion of what a "Good thing" is.  You probably need to put down the video-game controller and get into the real world.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?
> 
> Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.
> 
> Explain THAT, Joe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont know about that
> 
> i have 973 articles where a gun was used in self defense this year
> 
> in many instances the gun owner defended more then one person
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are all horseshit stories.
> 
> Don't believe a one of them.
Click to expand...


You know what that reminds me of?

"Unfortunately you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. * You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted.*"

- President Barack H. Obama,  in a commencement speech to graduating class of Ohio State University, May 5, 2013


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need cars.  We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.
> 
> We don't need guns. We really don't.  Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries are not a "good thing".
> 
> Wheeling dead children out of schools because someone went on a rampage after buying a gun even though he was batshit crazy is not a "good thing".
> 
> 
> you have a very strange notion of what a "Good thing" is.  You probably need to put down the video-game controller and get into the real world.
Click to expand...


Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I _am_ in the real world, where the hell are you?


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating?   Yeah. Sadistic.
> 
> Sorry. You don't need a gun.  You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably neither, since you were in his territory...
> 
> But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.
Click to expand...


Project much?


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I _am_ in the real world, where the hell are you?



I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about. 

Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest.  So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up. 

This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably neither, since you were in his territory...
> 
> But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Project much?
Click to expand...


No, Ernie is such a crazy person I had to put him on ignore so he'd stop sending me unwanted PM's....


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I _am_ in the real world, where the hell are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest.  So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.
> 
> This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.
Click to expand...


No, we are talking about it here. You wont run away and you won't derail this discussion. 

You seem to care for children so much, how come the ones in the womb don't count? Eh? What's that? They're clumps of flesh? Well that's interesting, I seem to notice how they only matter to you either DEAD in the womb, or DEAD as a means to push a gun control agenda. Ohh they need their food stamps! You sick bastard. 

You haven't given any legitimate reasons why people should give up their firearms. Except to deign to depths thought unimaginable, by using innocent children as political pawns. How dare you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably neither, since you were in his territory...
> 
> But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Ernie is such a crazy person I had to put him on ignore so he'd stop sending me unwanted PM's....
Click to expand...


Oh? So you call him crazy when you can't rebut his arguments? How childish.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I _am_ in the real world, where the hell are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest.  So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.
> 
> This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we are talking about it here. You wont run away and you won't derail this discussion.
> 
> You seem to care for children so much, how come the ones in the womb don't count? Eh? What's that? They're clumps of flesh? Well that's interesting, I seem to notice how they only matter to you either DEAD in the womb, DEAD as a means to push a gun control agenda. Ohh they need their food stamps! You sick bastard.
> 
> You haven't given any legitimate reasons why people should give up their firearms. Except to deign to depths thought unimaginable, by using innocent children as political pawns.
Click to expand...


Yes, when it's in "a womb", the size of a kidney bean, and wouldn't survive five minutes outside the womb, it's not a "baby" or a "Child".  An Egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not a tree.  

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions. Comprehensive sex education free of religous bullshit.  Mandetory family and medical leave- PAID.  Universal health care.  All those industrialized nations do this, and they have abortion rates that are half of what ours is.  

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for you to give up your firearms.  

The main one being there is no good reason for you to have one. 32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries every year are plenty of good reasons.  And a lot of those are kids.  real kids, not imaginary ones the size of a Kidney bean.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Project much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Ernie is such a crazy person I had to put him on ignore so he'd stop sending me unwanted PM's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? So you call him crazy when you can't rebut his arguments? How childish.
Click to expand...


No, I call him a crazy person because he's a crazy person. I really can't go into more detail than that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest.  So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.
> 
> This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we are talking about it here. You wont run away and you won't derail this discussion.
> 
> You seem to care for children so much, how come the ones in the womb don't count? Eh? What's that? They're clumps of flesh? Well that's interesting, I seem to notice how they only matter to you either DEAD in the womb, DEAD as a means to push a gun control agenda. Ohh they need their food stamps! You sick bastard.
> 
> You haven't given any legitimate reasons why people should give up their firearms. Except to deign to depths thought unimaginable, by using innocent children as political pawns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, when it's in "a womb", the size of a kidney bean, and wouldn't survive five minutes outside the womb, it's not a "baby" or a "Child".  An Egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not a tree.
> 
> There are a lot of legitimate reasons for you to give up your firearms.
Click to expand...


I deleted your bloviating to cut to the chase:

Such flawed logic. So, if you left a toddler alone with no sustenance, can he/she survive? We all know what happens to a baby that isn't fully developed. The answer? No. _There_ is the flaw of your argument. _Neither_ are capable of living outside of the womb on their own, because they are both incapable of acquiring nourishment. But one is an unborn child, the other is an already born child. So, is that toddler just "a clump of flesh?" Your logic is way off the mark. 

"There are a lot of legitimate reasons to give up your firearms." Name them, without reciting those already debunked statistics of yours.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [q
> 
> I deleted your bloviating to cut to the chase:
> 
> Such flawed logic. So, if you left a toddler alone with no sustenance, can he/she survive? There is the flaw of your argument. Neither are capable of living outside of the womb on their own, because they are both incapable of acquiring nourishment. But one is a human fetus, the other is an already born child. Your logic is way off the mark.



The problem with the "a baby would starve" is that you would actually have to make a concerted effort to starve a baby.  Anyone could feed it because it's organs are capable of sustaining it. 

As opposed to a fetus prior to 20 weeks, which has NEVER survived outside the womb, not once. 





TemplarKormac said:


> "There are a lot of legitimate reasons to give up your firearms." Name them, without reciting those already debunked statistics of yours.



32,000 gun deaths. 
79,000 gun injuries. 
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

Done.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [q
> 
> I deleted your bloviating to cut to the chase:
> 
> Such flawed logic. So, if you left a toddler alone with no sustenance, can he/she survive? There is the flaw of your argument. Neither are capable of living outside of the womb on their own, because they are both incapable of acquiring nourishment. But one is a human fetus, the other is an already born child. Your logic is way off the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with the "a baby would starve" is that you would actually have to make a concerted effort to starve a baby.  Anyone could feed it because it's organs are capable of sustaining it.
> 
> As opposed to a fetus prior to 20 weeks, which has NEVER survived outside the womb, not once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are a lot of legitimate reasons to give up your firearms." Name them, without reciting those already debunked statistics of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths.
> 79,000 gun injuries.
> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
> 
> Done.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you fail on every count. Your logic is if it can't survive outside the womb that it isn't human. What about the toddler? You and I both know the toddler could not survive on his or her own without assistance from the parent. Is this toddler a not a human being?

And you recited those outdated statistics. Can you honestly not come up with a legitimate reason for stripping people of their 2nd Amendment rights? You cite a 27 year old report in the New England Journal of Medicine, namely &#8220;Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home.&#8221; Interestingly enough, the study only accounted for cases of self-defense with firearms in which the criminal was killed. If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data. *1986* Joe. *Nineteen Eighty Six*. What kind of fool do you take me for? That had to be one of the more seriously flawed reports on gun violence in recent memory!

Do you see any pundits using this study to push any of their gun control agenda? No, because even they aren't that stupid. I know you are an acolyte of Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann. He was the founding chairman of the department of Emergency Medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, he helped author that sad report on gun violence. All he did was study gun violence in one city, Seattle, for six years. The funny part was that the government had been funding his research. But in 1993 he tried covering for himself, by conducting similar studies Cleveland, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Seattle over five years, that again miserably. It led to his research being scrapped by the CDC in 1996. The final appropriation language included the following statement: &#8220;[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.&#8221;

You're toast. Get out. You have been resoundingly defeated.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [q
> 
> Sorry, you fail on every count. Your logic is if it can't survive outside the womb that it isn't human. What about the toddler? You and I both know the toddler could not survive on his or her own *without assistance from the parent*. Is this toddler a not a human being?



That's not true. Toddlers are taken away from parents EVERY DAY when they prove unfit.  Most parents actually leave their children at this thing called "Day Care" when they go to something called "a Job" (Seriously, you should look into getting one of those!) And guess what, those children are able to survive quite some time without "a parent".  They have to be assisted by someone, but usually, it's someone who WANTED to assist them.  

What you want is to force someone to keep something that isn't viable outside their body inside their body, whether they want it or not. 





TemplarKormac said:


> And you recited those outdated statistics. You show you cannot honestly come up with a legitimate reason for stripping people of their 2nd Amendment rights. You cite a 27 year old report in the New England Journal of Medicine, Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home. Interestingly enough, the study only accounted for cases of self-defense with firearms in which the criminal was killed. .



The reason we only have the 27 year old study was because right after Kellerman came out with his study, the National Rampage Association went to Congress and told them to never fund a gun-injury study, even again.  

It would be kind of like if we had a study that suggested cigarettes caused cancer, and Philip-Morris went to Congress and banned all cancer studies.  




TemplarKormac said:


> If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data 1986 Joe. Nineteen Eighty Six. What kind of fool do you take me for? That had to be one of the more seriously flawed reports on gun violence in recent memory!



Oh, I take you for the kind of fool who lives at home, can't hold down a job, and listens to Hate Radio all day and thinks badly of those "Welfare people" he's really no better than.  That's the kind of fool I take you for. 

But to the point, the Kellerman study ONLY studied death.  

It didn't count all the times some wife-beater pulled out the gun and threatened to shoot the family dog, either. 

It counted DEATH.  For every 1 bad guy killed, there were 39 suicides, 3 domestic murders and 1 accident.   

OOOOOPS.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data 1986 Joe. Nineteen Eighty Six. What kind of fool do you take me for? That had to be one of the more seriously flawed reports on gun violence in recent memory!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I take you for the kind of fool who lives at home, can't hold down a job, and listens to Hate Radio all day and thinks badly of those "Welfare people" he's really no better than.  That's the kind of fool I take you for.
> 
> But to the point, the Kellerman study ONLY studied death.
> 
> It didn't count all the times some wife-beater pulled out the gun and threatened to shoot the family dog, either.
> 
> It counted DEATH.  For every 1 bad guy killed, there were 39 suicides, 3 domestic murders and 1 accident.
> 
> OOOOOPS.
Click to expand...


Nope. His study was so black and white, there were many holes poked into it.  Author Henry E. Schaefer M.D. published a rebuttal paper to Kellerman&#8217;s 1993 report that same year, in which Schaefer notes several flaws, starting with Kellerman's use of the case control method (CCM) of analysis. It was later rebutted by the likes of J. Neil Schuman, Criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates and others. Also, the Kellermann et al paper was never peer reviewed. When asked to proved the raw numbers that supposedly backed up his claim, he refused, and still to this day has refused to. 

Florida State University Criminologist Gary Kleck found that no method of gun control had any impact on the number of suicides. Controlling guns did somewhat temper suicide through use of a gun, but not the overall suicide rate. The Kellerman study was still flawed, even after Kellerman backed away from his 43 times figure and concluded that a person who owned a gun was now "2.7 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than one who did not."



> The Kellerman, et al (1993) study in the NEJM attempts to use the case-control method (CCM) to show that gun ownership increases homicide in the home. The limitations of the CCM, and serious flaws in the study methodology, result in invalidation of the study's conclusions.
> 
> The CCM has a number of limitations in what it can accomplish, and has a number of conditions (assumptions) which must be satisfied for it to be able to satisfactorily accomplish even the limited goals for which it is suitable. The biggest limitation is that the CCM can't demonstrate causation. The CCM finds 'associations' between studied factors and the 'outcome' which defines the 'cases'. These 'associations' may suggest that there is a causal relationship, and may then be used to justify a study of causal relationships, but it is incorrect to jump from the discovery of an association to a conclusion of causation. Other weak points in the CCM have to do with susceptibility to biases in the selection of the cases, and with confounding factors which can affect the choice of the controls. These can easily lead to spurious associations when there actually are none, or to associations which are reversed in direction from what actually exists.
> 
> The Kellerman, et al (1993) study has been widely quoted as demonstrating that there is a causal relationship between handguns in the home and homicides. The paper itself doesn't go that far, but it uses suggestive language, which suggests that there is more than merely an 'association'. The flaws in the paper are such as to make the the reader suspicious of the association found. Showing flaws in the methods does not prove that the paper is wrong, but it causes a loss of confidence in the results. Conclusions which are not properly supported must be considered invalid until proper support becomes available, if ever. It is the responsibility of the authors to support their conclusions. It isn't the responsibility of the readers to go out to collect data to prove that the flaws in the paper lead to incorrect conclusions.
> 
> The detailed treatment of these flaws, with supporting data, examples and methods is necessarily quite long, but it does illustrate that the Kellerman, et al paper is based on unsupported assumptions and that the conclusions must be viewed with suspicion or rejected as being unsupported.
> 
> -- Henry E. Schaffer, Ph. D.




Serious Flaws in Kellerman

Get up, get up, get outta here, GOOOOOONE!!


----------



## JoeB131

You know what, a paid shill of the gun industry is about as credible with me as a paid shill of the tobacco industry insisting cigarettes don't cause cancer.  

The thing is, Kellerman drives you guys nuts because he debunks the major myth of why you nutters want guns. 

To protect yourself from that scary negro who might want to break into your house. 

When in reality, a gun is more likely to end up killing you in a domestic argument or suicide.


----------



## TemplarKormac

The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:

- No peer review

- No release of raw data has ever been made

- Sampling and bias errors 

*1. 65% of subjects were black

2. Does not consider positive aspects of gun ownership by asking if a weapon was used to frighten off an intruder, or if the homicides were justified (i.e. justifiable homicides by homeowner or police.) Kellerman merely asked: "In this household where a homicide was committed, was there a gun, any gun in the house?" Kellerman intentionally limited his study group to cases where people were murdered in their own homes.​*
- Error introduced due to failure of subjects to respond honestly was not treated in Kellerman's study.

- Improperly grouped subgroups into populations using the chi-square Mantel-Haenszel analysis for matched pairs without giving an analysis, which leads to errors due to the stratification of the data.

*- Only three counties were used in his study thereby making the application of even causal associations within the data to the entire population of the U.S. a farce.*

- 52.7% of Kellerman's subjects had a family member with an arrest record

- 31.3% had a history of drug abuse

- 31.8% had a household member hurt in a family fight

- Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> You know what, a paid shill of the gun industry is about as credible with me as a paid shill of the tobacco industry insisting cigarettes don't cause cancer.
> 
> The thing is, Kellerman drives you guys nuts because he debunks the major myth of why you nutters want guns.
> 
> To protect yourself from that scary negro who might want to break into your house.
> 
> When in reality, a gun is more likely to end up killing you in a domestic argument or suicide.



Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.


----------



## TemplarKormac

So, Joe,  you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.

Need I go on?


----------



## Bumberclyde

*Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

Ban bullets, no constitutional protection for bullets.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Keep spouting that lie Joe, although it has been thoroughly debunked. Have a good morning. Make sure you don't cross me in a gun control debate ever again. You should be embarrassed.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.



Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without an investment of TRILLIONS infrastructure to provide public transportation to get us all everywhere we'd want to go, along with the hundreds of millions in lost productivity and lost industry.
> 
> We need cars.  We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.
> 
> We don't need guns. We really don't.  Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.
Click to expand...


Yea, they don't need cars in Loonsville, and naturally, they don't need guns.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries are not a "good thing".
> 
> Wheeling dead children out of schools because someone went on a rampage after buying a gun even though he was batshit crazy is not a "good thing".
> 
> 
> you have a very strange notion of what a "Good thing" is.  You probably need to put down the video-game controller and get into the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I _am_ in the real world, where the hell are you?
Click to expand...


Umm...he's back in his second childhood, maybe his fifth, dreaming about toy guns.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:
> 
> 
> 65% of subjects were black
> 
> 
> 
> - 52.7% of Kellerman's subjects had a family member with an arrest record
> 
> - 31.3% had a history of drug abuse
> 
> - 31.8% had a household member hurt in a family fight
> 
> - Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?



Oh, so if it's BLACK people getting killed, that totally makes it okay, then.  

I see the logic here.  

People getting killed are people getting killed.   The fact they had a "family member with an arrest record" is kind of dishonest, since with 2 million in prison and 9 million on probation or parole, that's a pretty wide statistic.  Who the fuck doesn't  have a family member with an arrest record? 

It's just "those people" getting killed, that makes it okay.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.
Click to expand...


Buh bye! I've never whipped anybody this badly before.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:
> 
> 
> 65% of subjects were black
> 
> 
> 
> - 52.7% of Kellerman's subjects had a family member with an arrest record
> 
> - 31.3% had a history of drug abuse
> 
> - 31.8% had a household member hurt in a family fight
> 
> - Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so if it's BLACK people getting killed, that totally makes it okay, then.
> 
> I see the logic here.
> 
> *People getting killed are people getting killed.*   The fact they had a "family member with an arrest record" is kind of dishonest, since with 2 million in prison and 9 million on probation or parole, that's a pretty wide statistic.  Who the fuck doesn't have a family member with an arrest record?
> 
> It's just "those people" getting killed, that makes it okay.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you have nothing to back that statement up. I know you don't. Last time I checked, my grandmother was never caught running moonshine back in the day, her mom didn't, nor did her father, or their fathers and so on and so forth. So not everyone has an arrest record, Joe. That is another unsubstantiated claim. 

You see the "logic" because it's Kellerman's paper you're attacking. How utterly pathetic. Only a liberal can and would understand the musings of another.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> So, Joe,  you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be *"43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." *The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.
> 
> Need I go on?



Exccept -  "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found. 

What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household. 

And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".  

And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.  

If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.  

We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.  

But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.  

That would probably put the figure at 160-1.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Sorry, you have nothing to back that statement up. I know you don't. Last time I checked, my grandmother was never caught running moonshine back in the day, her mom didn't, nor did her father, or their fathers and so on and so forth. So not everyone has an arrest record, Joe. That is another unsubstantiated claim.
> 
> You see the "logic" because it's Kellerman's paper you're attacking. You're pathetic. Only a liberal can understand the musings of another.



Depends how you define "an arrest record".  

My brother has an arrest record.  he stole a light bulb off someone's lawn when he was 19.  No charges were pressed, and he apologized, but it was an "arrest record".  

Point is, you are like the upset baseball player who kicks dirt on the base...  

Nothing you've said have debunked Kellerman's main finding... that you are far more likely to be killed by your own gun than kill that bad guy you are soooo afraid of.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buh bye! I've never whipped anybody this badly before.
> 
> :
Click to expand...


only in your own mind.  

Kellerman is established fact.  The CDC accepts his study, so do most scientific and academic bodies.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not without an investment of TRILLIONS infrastructure to provide public transportation to get us all everywhere we'd want to go, along with the hundreds of millions in lost productivity and lost industry.
> 
> We need cars.  We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.
> 
> We don't need guns. We really don't.  Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.
Click to expand...


We have become heavily dependent on them for sure. But we don't need them. You're pretty much making argument for me though. The investment? Again, you're all but flat out admitting those deaths are tolerable due to the inconvenience involved in banning the inanimate object they were involved.

And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.

P.S. still waitig for you to tell me why muy way of getting meat is so sadistic and yours is not.


----------



## JoeB131

Reality from RESPECTED Academics. 

Emory Magazine: Arthur Kellermann

Actually, Kellermann found an almost absolute void in the consideration of that question. The most relevant item he discovered in the medical literature was a one-line mention in an old issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that asserted that a gun in the home was six times more likely to be involved in an accidental death of a family member than to be used to kill an intruder in self-defense. "I saw that observation quoted repeatedly in subsequent editorials or medical reviews but no additional research on the question," he says.

Kellermann has spent much of his professional life trying to fill that gap. His studies have found a strong link between guns and violent death. For example:


In a 1986 study that examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an [intruder]."

Kellermann and several colleagues published a study in 1988 that examined the link between handgun regulations and handgun homicide and assault in Vancouver, a city that had adopted "a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns," and Seattle. The study found that "the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver."

In 1993, Kellermann was the lead investigator in a study that looked at homicides that occurred in homes in Cleveland, Memphis, and Seattle over five years. The results showed that homicides occurred nearly three times more often in homes where guns were stored than in otherwise comparable homes where there was no gun.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Joe,  you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be *"43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." *The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.
> 
> Need I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exccept -  "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.
> 
> What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.
> 
> And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".
> 
> And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.
> 
> If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.
> 
> We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.
> 
> But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.
> 
> That would probably put the figure at 160-1.
Click to expand...


Since when did you get your degree in criminology? Yes, the number of suicides is correct, but not all of them were committed with a firearm. Not all murders are committed with firearms, and yeah, gun accidents which counted as how much of a percent of the population as a whole? You're being blatantly dishonest, and so was Kellermann.

In 1994 (after the publication of his paper), Kellerman was taped giving a presentation at a seminar. At this time he states on the tape that a person is 18 times more likely to be murdered if they keep a firearm in the home! Guess who was at the seminar, Joe? None other than Janet Reno. She loved quoting him when speaking about gun control in her capacity as Attorney General during the Clinton Administration.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Joe,  you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be *"43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." *The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.
> 
> Need I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exccept -  "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.
> 
> What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.
> 
> And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".
> 
> And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.
> 
> If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.
> 
> We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.
> 
> But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.
> 
> That would probably put the figure at 160-1.
Click to expand...


Ib J. Edgar Hoover is rolling over in his grave at this minute. LMAO

Maybe, he has a gun.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.



Expect the two reasons you give for WANTING The gun, wanting to kill a bad guy (almost never happens) and wanting to fight the government (Just batshit crazy) are statistically MORE unlikely than you or a member of your family or your neighbor being shot because one day, you lost your shit.  

On the other hand, a car is going to do exactly what it is designed to do most of the time, get me from point A to point B. 



> P.S. still waitig for you to tell me why muy way of getting meat is so sadistic and yours is not.



I didn't personally commit the kiling, you dumbfuck. 

Just like I don't personally dispose of my garbage. 

If you get your jollies out of killing an animal, you have serious issues.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> Reality from RESPECTED Academics.
> 
> Emory Magazine: Arthur Kellermann
> 
> Actually, Kellermann found an almost absolute void in the consideration of that question. The most relevant item he discovered in the medical literature was a one-line mention in an old issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that asserted that a gun in the home was six times more likely to be involved in an accidental death of a family member than to be used to kill an intruder in self-defense. "I saw that observation quoted repeatedly in subsequent editorials or medical reviews but no additional research on the question," he says.
> 
> Kellermann has spent much of his professional life trying to fill that gap. His studies have found a strong link between guns and violent death. For example:
> 
> 
> In a 1986 study that examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an [intruder]."
> 
> Kellermann and several colleagues published a study in 1988 that examined the link between handgun regulations and handgun homicide and assault in Vancouver, a city that had adopted "a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns," and Seattle. The study found that "the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver."
> 
> In 1993, Kellermann was the lead investigator in a study that looked at homicides that occurred in homes in Cleveland, Memphis, and Seattle over five years. The results showed that homicides occurred nearly three times more often in homes where guns were stored than in otherwise comparable homes where there was no gun.



First it was 43 times, then it was 2.7 times, then it was 18 time. His numbers were wrong, and so are you, Joe.

In 1996, his junk science was defunded by congress. Because it was junk science. Given that he can't just use those cities to extrapolate the trend for the rest of the country, that is also dishonest. 

Sorry Joe, I have you cornered.


----------



## JoeB131

More erroneous claims about Kellermann ? Deltoid

Kellermann&#8217;s studies on guns frequently get criticized by people who do not seem to have read them. The latest to do so is Michael Krauss, who writes


Notwithstanding all this data, the press gave extraordinary publicity to a 1993 article by one Arthur Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine. Kellerman&#8217;s &#8220;study&#8221; concluded that the presence of a gun in one&#8217;s home dramatically increased one&#8217;s chances of being killed by gunfire. As has since been widely noted, though, the study had stupendous methodological flaws that would surely have precluded its publication, were the NEJM not blinded by its fear and loathing of guns. 

As we shall see below, Krauss doesn&#8217;t seem to have actually read Kellermann&#8216;s study. 



The study consisted of going to homes where a homicide occurred, and asking whether there was a gun in the house. Such a study by design and definition excluded successful uses of the gun (i.e., where the attacker is scared off and no one is killed). 

Not so. Krauss is apparently unaware that the study was a case-control study. That means that as well as visiting the houses where there was a homicide (the cases), they also found similar homes where there wasn&#8217;t a homicide (the controls). Successful uses of guns that prevent homicides show up in the controls.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Joe,  you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be *"43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." *The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.
> 
> Need I go on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exccept -  "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.
> 
> What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.
> 
> And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".
> 
> And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.
> 
> If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.
> 
> We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.
> 
> But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.
> 
> That would probably put the figure at 160-1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when did you get your degree in criminology? Yes, the number of suicides is correct, but not all of them were committed with a firearm. Not all murders are committed with firearms, and yeah, gun accidents which counted as how much of a percent of the population as a whole? You're being blatantly dishonest, and so was Kellerman.
> 
> In 1994 (after the publication of his paper), Kellerman was taped giving a presentation at a seminar. At this time he states on the tape that a person is 18 times more likely to be murdered if they keep a firearm in the home! Guess who was at the seminar, Joe? None other than Janet Reno. She loved quoting him when speaking about gun control in her capacity as Attorney General during the Clinton Administration.
Click to expand...


Janet Reno clued me into "comparative analysis" approximately 10 years ago. You need some of that shit Joe Blow. 

Gun control isn't up to you, dough boy.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> First it was 43 times, then it was 2.7 times, then it was 18 time. His numbers were wrong, and so are you, Joe.
> 
> In 1996, his junk science was defunded by congress. Because it was junk science. Given that he can't just use those cities to extrapolate the trend for the rest of the country, that is also dishonest.
> 
> Sorry Joe, I have you cornered.



No, what you have is dishonesty.  

If his science was junk science, why didn't Congress fund a REAL study that would have gotten accurate data.  

They didn't do that.  They banned ANY study of gun violence by the CDC or any other agency. 

This is not a valid statistical method.  

When you encounter a number that is flawed or doesn't look like, you don't reject it and never study it again.  

You do another study.  

Again, this is kind of what I do at my job (I'm sure you've heard of those) when I see a price that is wrong.  I find out WHY it is wrong.  You drill down into the data. 

Congress didn't do that, probably because the NRA didn't want them to.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry, you have nothing to back that statement up. I know you don't. Last time I checked, my grandmother was never caught running moonshine back in the day, her mom didn't, nor did her father, or their fathers and so on and so forth. So not everyone has an arrest record, Joe. That is another unsubstantiated claim.
> 
> You see the "logic" because it's Kellerman's paper you're attacking. You're pathetic. Only a liberal can understand the musings of another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends how you define "an arrest record".
> 
> My brother has an arrest record.  he stole a light bulb off someone's lawn when he was 19.  No charges were pressed, and he apologized, but it was an "arrest record".
> 
> Point is, you are like the upset baseball player who kicks dirt on the base...
> 
> Nothing you've said have debunked Kellerman's main finding... that you are far more likely to be killed by your own gun than kill that bad guy you are soooo afraid of.
Click to expand...


Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.

Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> More erroneous claims about Kellermann ? Deltoid
> 
> Kellermanns studies on guns frequently get criticized by people who do not seem to have read them. The latest to do so is Michael Krauss, who writes
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding all this data, the press gave extraordinary publicity to a 1993 article by one Arthur Kellerman in the New England Journal of Medicine. Kellermans study concluded that the presence of a gun in ones home dramatically increased ones chances of being killed by gunfire. As has since been widely noted, though, the study had stupendous methodological flaws that would surely have precluded its publication, were the NEJM not blinded by its fear and loathing of guns.
> 
> As we shall see below, Krauss doesnt seem to have actually read Kellermanns study.
> 
> 
> 
> The study consisted of going to homes where a homicide occurred, and asking whether there was a gun in the house. Such a study by design and definition excluded successful uses of the gun (i.e., where the attacker is scared off and no one is killed).
> 
> Not so. Krauss is apparently unaware that the study was a case-control study. That means that as well as visiting the houses where there was a homicide (the cases), they also found similar homes where there wasnt a homicide (the controls). Successful uses of guns that prevent homicides show up in the controls.



A blog? Is that it?


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buh bye! I've never whipped anybody this badly before.
> 
> :
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only in your own mind.
> 
> Kellerman is established fact.  The CDC accepts his study, so do most scientific and academic bodies.
Click to expand...


Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.

Here is a direct rebuttal of Kellermann's (with the extra 'n') study, performed by Gary Kleck.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

And another by Kleck along with Micheal Hogan:

http://www.guncite.com/Kleck-Hogan.html

We are done here. Good morning.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Expect the two reasons you give for WANTING The gun, wanting to kill a bad guy (almost never happens) and wanting to fight the government (Just batshit crazy) are statistically MORE unlikely than you or a member of your family or your neighbor being shot because one day, you lost your shit.
> 
> On the other hand, a car is going to do exactly what it is designed to do most of the time, get me from point A to point B.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a reason Joe. That's the way free society works. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I didn't personally commit the kiling, you dumbfuck.
> 
> Just like I don't personally dispose of my garbage.
> 
> If you get your jollies out of killing an animal, you have serious issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I get it. it's okay for you to consume meat because you have someone else kill it. It's not okay for me to eat meat that I have killed myself. Yeah, that makes complete sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## birddog

Getting a liberal to admit being wrong is rare or near impossible.  Conservatives tend to be more correct especially Constitutionally.  As a Conservative, I have once in a great while been wrong and admitted it.  I try to see things from all sides, but you won't catch a liberal doing that!  That makes them lying scum!


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk abou so much you clearly know so little about. A lot of hunting is waiting, not stalking and I don't shoot anything that I'm not going to eat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a typical hunter.  Joe is a typical liberal.  He eats animals that were confined for their lives in small areas and murdered by someone else for him when their flesh was optimal for mass market consumption.  Then he looks down his nose at the heathens who "hunt" and kill their own food because that's unsavory.  He probably ate at McDonald's for lunch...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I ate at boston market for lunch, and had the assurance that my lunch was raised on a farm, kept free of disease, and humanely dispatched.
Click to expand...


I've been a vegetarian since 1996.   You're a hypocrite, have been all your life.  Humanely dispatched, please.  Raised in captivity, slaughtered by the masses, but you tell yourself you're "civilized" and hunters aren't.


----------



## kaz

birddog said:


> Getting a liberal to admit being wrong is rare or near impossible.  Conservatives tend to be more correct especially Constitutionally.  As a Conservative, I have once in a great while been wrong and admitted it.  I try to see things from all sides, but you won't catch a liberal doing that!  That makes them lying scum!



Initially, Liberals believe that their position will lead to greater good, even if they are wrong about something particular.  So they in their mind are fighting the good fight.  The problem with that is that eventually they just stop questioning their side all together and just blindly advocate them.  Then their politicians realize they are doing that and manipulate them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expect the two reasons you give for WANTING The gun, wanting to kill a bad guy (almost never happens) and wanting to fight the government (Just batshit crazy) are statistically MORE unlikely than you or a member of your family or your neighbor being shot because one day, you lost your shit.
> 
> On the other hand, a car is going to do exactly what it is designed to do most of the time, get me from point A to point B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. still waitig for you to tell me why muy way of getting meat is so sadistic and yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't personally commit the kiling, you dumbfuck.
> 
> Just like I don't personally dispose of my garbage.
> 
> If you get your jollies out of killing an animal, you have serious issues.
Click to expand...


Well except there are around 300 million firearms in private hands millions more in law enforcement private security and military. Now lets look at that number again? 30000 deaths by all means with a firearm to include the vast majority by suicide. Care to do the math on how often a firearm kills someone compared to the total?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

72 pages and not one post by the gun grabbers addressing the Ops question.


----------



## kaz

RetiredGySgt said:


> 72 pages and not one post by the gun grabbers addressing the Ops question.



Thanks for pointing that out, gunnery sergeant.  For liberals, I'll give you a fish.  It would be nice to see a direct answer.  Of course there isn't one that makes sense, which is why they evade the question or just assume that laws will work.



kaz said:


> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.
> 
> Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.



No, nothing you said debunks his central claim.  

What you said is 'those people' are more likely to kill.  Which really is completely irrellavent to the point. Those guns that were responsible for 43 times the number of gun deaths were in the house, owned by someone in the house that bought them for protection.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> [
> 
> Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.
> We are done here. Good morning.



Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.  

The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.
> 
> Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, nothing you said debunks his central claim.
> 
> What you said is 'those people' are more likely to kill.  Which really is completely irrellavent to the point. Those guns that were responsible for 43 times the number of gun deaths were in the house, owned by someone in the house that bought them for protection.
Click to expand...


Most accidents occur in the home. Without guns, people that are edgy and badly want protection might just started walking around with knives. Is that what you want?


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha! Really? Now you resort to anecdotes? How novel. Kellerman made the assumption that if you were an ex convict that you were more likely to commit a crime with a gun. It's soooo fucking easy, Joe. Don't make things harder on yourself. I have consigned you to an utter state of denial. "Nothing you said debunks his central claim" ohhh yes it does. I've more than explained how.
> 
> Grow up. Stop flaunting these lies of yours. Nobody who has the will to do research will ever be fooled by your garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, nothing you said debunks his central claim.
> 
> What you said is 'those people' are more likely to kill.  Which really is completely irrellavent to the point. Those guns that were responsible for 43 times the number of gun deaths were in the house, owned by someone in the house that bought them for protection.
Click to expand...


That's what he said, not what I said. Too bad he's still wrong.  My dad has been a gun owner for 23 years. By yours and Kellermann's account, he should have already shot himself by now. Given that he's a trained Army Marksman, I doubt he would be as clumsy as that study purports people to be.


----------



## TemplarKormac

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.
> We are done here. Good morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.
> 
> The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.
Click to expand...


The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded.  So why are you lying again?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

TemplarKormac said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry, the CDC stopped funding his crap in 1996, as I have mentioned TWICE before, you simpleton. They outrightly rejected his study for the same reasons I have explained to you already. As an aside, Tim Lambert of Deltoid is as far left of a liberal as you are, and he even dabbles in Climate Change Alarmism, he is also affiliated with the Australian Democrats. I won't have any more of your bullshit, Joe. Your argument has been annihilated. Just face facts. You are wrong.
> We are done here. Good morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.
> 
> The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded.  So why are you lying again?
Click to expand...


Seeing how there are less then 800 accidental shootings a year I would suggest his data is simply wrong.


----------



## TemplarKormac

kaz said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 72 pages and not one post by the gun grabbers addressing the Ops question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out, gunnery sergeant.  For liberals, I'll give you a fish.  It would be nice to see a direct answer.  Of course there isn't one that makes sense, which is why they evade the question or just assume that laws will work.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Instituting more gun laws is like squeezing water from a stone. Going after the criminal himself however...


----------



## TemplarKormac

RetiredGySgt said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has to state he has won an argument hasn't.
> 
> The CDC Stopped funding it because the NRA and gun manufacturers didn't want people to know how dangerous guns were and don't do what they promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded.  So why are you lying again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seeing how there are less then 800 accidental shootings a year I would suggest his data is simply wrong.
Click to expand...


That much is a given, Gunny. I thoroughly debunked him this morning... yet he still lies in spite of the reality set before him.


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA had nothing to do with it. They failed in lobbying to get him defunded.  So why are you lying again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing how there are less then 800 accidental shootings a year I would suggest his data is simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That much is a given, Gunny. I thoroughly debunked him this morning... yet he still lies in spite of the reality set before him.
Click to expand...


Guy, you haven't debunked one thing. 

All you've proven is you are a couch potato who regurgitates whatever shit you read on line from the NRA.  

Incidently, I posted the 800 accidential death figure.  That's not even in dispute.  

But combine that with 19,500 suicides and 11,101 murders, and frankly, that's too many gun deaths for no good reason.  

The costs outweigh the benefits.  Period.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a reason Joe. That's the way free society works. Deal with it.



No, guy, free societies work PERFECTLY FINE without guns. 

The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have all proven this.  

The problem is you think you sit their with your largely useless gun and cower in fear of your neighbors and government...  living in fear isn't freedom. 







Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> Oh I get it. it's okay for you to consume meat because you have someone else kill it. It's not okay for me to eat meat that I have killed myself. Yeah, that makes complete sense.



No, if you kill an animal because that's your job, you are just like every other working stiff in the world, doing something you'd rather not do because they are paying you to do it. 

If you kill an animal because you get your rocks off doing it, that kind of makes you a sadist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need a reason Joe. That's the way free society works. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, free societies work PERFECTLY FINE without guns.
> 
> The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have all proven this.
> 
> The problem is you think you sit their with your largely useless gun and cower in fear of your neighbors and government...  living in fear isn't freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Oh I get it. it's okay for you to consume meat because you have someone else kill it. It's not okay for me to eat meat that I have killed myself. Yeah, that makes complete sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you kill an animal because that's your job, you are just like every other working stiff in the world, doing something you'd rather not do because they are paying you to do it.
> 
> If you kill an animal because you get your rocks off doing it, that kind of makes you a sadist.
Click to expand...


And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.



Or- 

1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias. 

2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY. 

3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement. 

4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.  

Done.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
Click to expand...


In other words we violate the law and the Constitution cause you KNOW a majority does not support your ignorance. Got it.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words we violate the law and the Constitution cause you KNOW a majority does not support your ignorance. Got it.
Click to expand...


I think it's a matter of INTERPRETATION, isn't it.  

In Miller v. US, the INTERPRETATION was that the second was about Militias.  

Heller found it to be an "individual" right. Unless the individual wanted a Howitzer or a Stinger missile or some shit like that.   Then not so much.  Scalia did a bunch of handstands that weren't very convincing.  

Scalia has a heart attack, and guess what, it's about "Militias" again.  

The other three are matters of regulation and commerce and taxes, no "rights" issue involved.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words we violate the law and the Constitution cause you KNOW a majority does not support your ignorance. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's a matter of INTERPRETATION, isn't it.
> 
> In Miller v. US, the INTERPRETATION was that the second was about Militias.
> 
> Heller found it to be an "individual" right. Unless the individual wanted a Howitzer or a Stinger missile or some shit like that.   Then not so much.  Scalia did a bunch of handstands that weren't very convincing.
> 
> Scalia has a heart attack, and guess what, it's about "Militias" again.
> 
> The other three are matters of regulation and commerce and taxes, no "rights" issue involved.
Click to expand...


In Miller it was NOT an interpretation that it was about Militias, it was that in order for a weapon to be protected it had to be of use to the Military. You don't even know what you are babbling about.


----------



## Care4all

I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...

who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> In Miller it was NOT an interpretation that it was about Militias, it was that in order for a weapon to be protected it had to be of use to the Military. You don't even know what you are babbling about.



Actually, it did a LOT more than that.  It allowed governments (federal, state and local) to declare entire classes of weapons  illegal and entire groups people inelligable to own weapons.

In short- Well Regulated Militia.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
Click to expand...


1) Accept it's not about just militias. The people who wrote it said so. Go back and read the federalist papers citations I posted.

2) Actually no, we don't go after ford when someone kills a family driving drunk in their Focus.

3) Statistically we should all be more concerned about you and the damage you'll cause with your car even though you do have insurance and licensing.

4) You can not tax rights.

0 for 4. Try again.


----------



## Geaux4it

I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off

-Geaux


----------



## Bern80

Care4all said:


> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?



Wow! A semi-rationale answer. Joe? Are you taking notes?


----------



## Geaux4it

Care4all said:


> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?



Many are stolen

-Geaux


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> No, guy, free societies work PERFECTLY FINE without guns.
> 
> The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan and France have all proven this.
> 
> The problem is you think you sit their with your largely useless gun and cower in fear of your neighbors and government...  living in fear isn't freedom.



And the evidence is that our free society works 'perfectly fine' with guns. They are statistically no more dangerous than several other inanimate objects and less so in many cases.



JoeB131 said:


> No, if you kill an animal because that's your job, you are just like every other working stiff in the world, doing something you'd rather not do because they are paying you to do it.
> 
> If you kill an animal because you get your rocks off doing it, that kind of makes you a sadist.



I hunt because I would rather know where what I'm eating comes from. I would rather know it's not chemically treated. I'd rather know they were not only treated humanely, but lived relatively free of human interaction most of their lives. The reality is Joe you're a hypocrite. Someone who condems hunting, but eats meat, claiming hunting for meat is less humane than getting from a fast food joint or grocery store. That's as about as ridiculous, illogical argument as I've heard in a long time.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And again for the truly slow and amazingly stupid.... This Country has laws. You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Work to change it view the legal means, get an amendment past Congress then approved in 37 States. Failing that you have no argument, none, nada zip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Accept it's not about just militias. The people who wrote it said so. Go back and read the federalist papers citations I posted.
> 
> 2) Actually no, we don't go after ford when someone kills a family driving drunk in their Focus.
> 
> 3) Statistically we should all be more concerned about you and the damage you'll cause with your car even though you do have insurance and licensing.
> 
> 4) You can not tax rights.
> 
> 0 for 4. Try again.
Click to expand...


1) Who gives a fuck what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought.  It's what WE think it is now that matters.  This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.   

When gangsters were shooting eachother with Tommy Guns and Sawed off shotguns during prohibition, they didn't say, "Well, what would Tommy Jefferson do when he was done raping Sally Hemmings?"  They banned the shit out of that stuff.  

2) Ford doesn't go around marketting their product to drunk drivers and that crazy lady who try to ram the White House YEsterday.  The Gun Industry does.  A better comparison would be the Tobacco industry, which WAS found liable when it was realized they marketted their products to children and spiked them to make them more addictive.  The gun industry is marketting to the Nancy Lanzas of the world, resisting any background checks, and making guns more deadly to appeal to the tiny penis crowd. 

3) Statistically, no, guns are more dangerous, because unilke a car, they are designed to kill people. 

4) We can tax whatever the fuck we want, and there are no "rights".  Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".  It can't be a right if it can be taken away from you.  

What we have are privilages that the rest of society lets you have.  If you abuse the privilage, you lose it.   As far as I'm concerned, the gun nuts lost the privilage the minute nutjobs engaged in mass shootings, and they resisted ANY attempts to tighten background checks.  

4)


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off
> 
> -Geaux



So even though no one was killed in this incident where the driver was just as at fault as the bikers (he did run over one of them), you would hope that someone had a gun so that we could have taken what was a simple assault and jack it up to murder. 

Brilliant! 

You see why I'd like to see people like you disarmed now?


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even though no one was killed in this incident where the driver was just as at fault as the bikers (he did run over one of them), you would hope that someone had a gun so that we could have taken what was a simple assault and jack it up to murder.
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> You see why I'd like to see people like you disarmed now?
Click to expand...


I never 'see' anything you spew. And what you would like to see will never happen in this country.

Your not very smart are you?

If a driver shot the person smashing the window in with his family in the car, it would not have been murder

Self defense


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! A semi-rationale answer. Joe? Are you taking notes?
Click to expand...


Care4All is a nice lady, but she is on the wrong track.  

First, in the case of the mass shooters - Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis - they didn't need a "black market" to get the weapons they used to murder nearly 100 people between the five of them. 

Similarly, most of the 32K gun suicides, murders and accidents are committed with legally acquired guns, usually someone who had no business having a gun to start with. 

Second, there wouldn't be a "black market" if there wasn't a white market of people with no background checks.  That means there are plenty of straw buyers and plenty of guns that are easy to steal.


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish 2 things. One is that those poor folks in New York could of had a gun against the bikers. Second, wish I was in that car because I would of had a gun and blew their heads off
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even though no one was killed in this incident where the driver was just as at fault as the bikers (he did run over one of them), you would hope that someone had a gun so that we could have taken what was a simple assault and jack it up to murder.
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> You see why I'd like to see people like you disarmed now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never 'see' anything you spew. And what you would like to see will never happen in this country.
> 
> Your not very smart are you?
> 
> If a driver shot the person smashing the window in with his family in the car, it would not have been murder
> 
> Self defense
Click to expand...


Probably not, given he ran over one of them intentionally.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Care4all said:


> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?



Gangs and the cartels by far. But Joe blames it on the "white market."


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs and the cartels by far. But Joe blames it on the "white market."
Click to expand...


Every mass shooter was able to get his gun legally despite being batshit crazy. 

The problem with "black market" guns is that there isn't a need for one.  It's just too easy to anyone to get guns to start with.


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs and the cartels by far. But Joe blames it on the "white market."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every mass shooter was able to get his gun legally despite being batshit crazy.
> 
> The problem with "black market" guns is that there isn't a need for one.  It's just too easy to anyone to get guns to start with.
Click to expand...


You are a lying piece of shit.

So, killing your Mother and stealing her weapon......

That's getting your gun 'legally'.

You are the lowest of the low.

scumbag


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Accept it's not about just militias. The people who wrote it said so. Go back and read the federalist papers citations I posted.
> 
> 2) Actually no, we don't go after ford when someone kills a family driving drunk in their Focus.
> 
> 3) Statistically we should all be more concerned about you and the damage you'll cause with your car even though you do have insurance and licensing.
> 
> 4) You can not tax rights.
> 
> 0 for 4. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Who gives a fuck what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought.  It's what WE think it is now that matters.  This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.
> 
> When gangsters were shooting eachother with Tommy Guns and Sawed off shotguns during prohibition, they didn't say, "Well, what would Tommy Jefferson do when he was done raping Sally Hemmings?"  They banned the shit out of that stuff.
> 
> 2) Ford doesn't go around marketting their product to drunk drivers and that crazy lady who try to ram the White House YEsterday.  The Gun Industry does.  A better comparison would be the Tobacco industry, which WAS found liable when it was realized they marketted their products to children and spiked them to make them more addictive.  The gun industry is marketting to the Nancy Lanzas of the world, resisting any background checks, and making guns more deadly to appeal to the tiny penis crowd.
> 
> 3) Statistically, no, guns are more dangerous, because unilke a car, they are designed to kill people.
> 
> 4) We can tax whatever the fuck we want, and there are no "rights".  Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".  It can't be a right if it can be taken away from you.
> 
> What we have are privilages that the rest of society lets you have.  If you abuse the privilage, you lose it.   As far as I'm concerned, the gun nuts lost the privilage the minute nutjobs engaged in mass shootings, and they resisted ANY attempts to tighten background checks.
> 
> 4)
Click to expand...


1)I think what you need to do Joe is move to a country that just makes the laws up as they go. That's what you seem to be saying here, that the constitution is irrelevent today. Also, you're a bit inconsistent. You have stated it is the people who construct the object that determine what it's for. Guns are for killing people you said because that's what they were designed fo, debateable, but anyway. Well the framers, the people who 'designed' the constitution told us what the 2nd ammendment is for in the constitution itself and in the federalist papers. You can't have it both ways.

2) Nor do gun makers market to murderers and criminals. Your attempt to prove otherwise perviously was laughable. 

3) Amazing that everything really does need to be explained for you on kidergarten level. When you determine how dangerous some obejct really is, you look at how many injuries and deaths they are involved in. What the objects purpose is, is entirely irrelevant.

4) Again you illustrate a fundmental lack of understanding about what a right is and our government. When our government was formed it was not set up such that our government allows the citizens certain privildges. It was set up the WE THE PEOPLE, allow the government certain powers. The rights established and what are constitution are inalienablie, individual rights. They are rights inherent to man. You have them regardless of government. You have the right to life, ergo you have the right to defend your life.

I am really starting to be a little fascinated by you Joe. I really have to wonder how someone get's so fucked up in the head and be wrong about so much. It's one thing to be against guns. If you don't like them. To each their own. But to defend your position so poorly where literally everthing that comes out of your mouth is factually incorrect is really something. How does someone believe they are so right about so much that is so obvious to everyone else so wrong?


----------



## JoeB131

Edgetho said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs and the cartels by far. But Joe blames it on the "white market."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every mass shooter was able to get his gun legally despite being batshit crazy.
> 
> The problem with "black market" guns is that there isn't a need for one.  It's just too easy to anyone to get guns to start with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> So, killing your Mother and stealing her weapon......
> 
> That's getting your gun 'legally'.
> 
> You are the lowest of the low.
> 
> scumbag
Click to expand...


I think you are confused on the order of things.  

He took his mother's gun (which she let him have easy access to), and THEN he killed her.  The woman had 12 guns lying around the house, and she probably didn't even have them locked up.  

Now, if no one sold her guns, and she hadn't been allowed to home skule a crazy person in "First Person Shooter 101", maybe we'd have had a different result.  

But  Home-schooled gun nut? Nancy should get "Right-Wing Mom of the Year".


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> 1)I think what you need to do Joe is move to a country that just makes the laws up as they go. That's what you seem to be saying here that, the constitution is irrelevent today. Also, your a bit inconsistent. You have stated it is the people who construct the object that determine what it's for. Guns are for killing people you said because that's what they were designed for. Well the framers, the people who 'designed' the constitution told us what the 2nd ammendment is for in the constitution itself and in the federalist papers. You can't have it both ways.



No, I am saying that we shouldn't let the opinions of 200 year ago slaveholders mold our policy. We need a policy that works for us, now.  

Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us.  Get it? 





> 2) Nor do gun makers market to murderers and criminals. Your attempt to prove otherwise perviously was laughable.



No, that's EXACTLY what they do, when they fight against background checks, waiting periods, and more importantly, market military grade weapons to the civilian market.  The purpose is to keep Nancy Lanza just scared enough so she wants to buy more guns, too.  





> 3) Amazing that everything really does need to be explained for you on kidergarten level. When you determine how dangerous some obejct really is, you look at how many injuries and deaths they are involved in. What the objects purpose is, is entirely irrelevant.



No, design is probably the overriding factor.  While the car makers are striving to make their products safer every year, the gun makers are striving to make their products deadlier.  



> 4) Again you illustrate a fundmental lack of understanding about what right is and our government. When our government was formed it was not set up such that our government allows the citizens certain privildges. It was set up the WE THE PEOPLE, allow the government certain powers.



Guy, I understant it perfectly, 

There ARE no rights.  Never were. There is what society will let you have. 

And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war.  And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time. 





> I am really starting to be a little fascinated by you Joe. I really have to wonder how someone get's so fucked up in the head and be wrong about so much. It's one thing to be against guns. If you don't like them. To each their own. But to defend your position so poorly where literally everthing that comes out of your mouth is factually incorrect is really something. How does someone believe they are so right about so much that is so obvious to everyone else so wrong?



Guy, I'm not the least bit fascinated by you. I figure you to be about 20 like your boy Tampon, probably never lived on your own, and your argument style is up there like a high school debate club.  You kind of bore me. 

But practical matter, you and Tampon and every other gun nut is getting played by the gun industry, who could care less if you live or die.


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every mass shooter was able to get his gun legally despite being batshit crazy.
> 
> The problem with "black market" guns is that there isn't a need for one.  It's just too easy to anyone to get guns to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> So, killing your Mother and stealing her weapon......
> 
> That's getting your gun 'legally'.
> 
> You are the lowest of the low.
> 
> scumbag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confused on the order of things.
> 
> He took his mother's gun (which she let him have easy access to), and THEN he killed her.  The woman had 12 guns lying around the house, and she probably didn't even have them locked up.
> 
> Now, if no one sold her guns, and she hadn't been allowed to home skule a crazy person in "First Person Shooter 101", maybe we'd have had a different result.
> 
> But  Home-schooled gun nut? Nancy should get "Right-Wing Mom of the Year".
Click to expand...


You're a scumbag liar.

It wasn't HIS gun.  It was his MOTHER'S gun.

douchebag piece of shit.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs and the cartels by far. But Joe blames it on the "white market."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every mass shooter was able to get his gun legally despite being batshit crazy.
> 
> The problem with "black market" guns is that there isn't a need for one.  It's just too easy to anyone to get guns to start with.
Click to expand...


 Shooters aren't paranoid now in your world and will gladly trust an acquaintance or a gun shop.


----------



## Edgetho

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1)I think what you need to do Joe is move to a country that just makes the laws up as they go. That's what you seem to be saying here that, the constitution is irrelevent today. Also, your a bit inconsistent. You have stated it is the people who construct the object that determine what it's for. Guns are for killing people you said because that's what they were designed for. Well the framers, the people who 'designed' the constitution told us what the 2nd ammendment is for in the constitution itself and in the federalist papers. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that we shouldn't let the opinions of 200 year ago slaveholders mold our policy. We need a policy that works for us, now.
> 
> Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us.  Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Nor do gun makers market to murderers and criminals. Your attempt to prove otherwise perviously was laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's EXACTLY what they do, when they fight against background checks, waiting periods, and more importantly, market military grade weapons to the civilian market.  The purpose is to keep Nancy Lanza just scared enough so she wants to buy more guns, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, design is probably the overriding factor.  While the car makers are striving to make their products safer every year, the gun makers are striving to make their products deadlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Again you illustrate a fundmental lack of understanding about what right is and our government. When our government was formed it was not set up such that our government allows the citizens certain privildges. It was set up the WE THE PEOPLE, allow the government certain powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I understant it perfectly,
> 
> *There ARE no rights.  Never were. There is what society will let you have. *
> 
> And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war.  And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really starting to be a little fascinated by you Joe. I really have to wonder how someone get's so fucked up in the head and be wrong about so much. It's one thing to be against guns. If you don't like them. To each their own. But to defend your position so poorly where literally everthing that comes out of your mouth is factually incorrect is really something. How does someone believe they are so right about so much that is so obvious to everyone else so wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not the least bit fascinated by you. I figure you to be about 20 like your boy Tampon, probably never lived on your own, and your argument style is up there like a high school debate club.  You kind of bore me.
> 
> But practical matter, you and Tampon and every other gun nut is getting played by the gun industry, who could care less if you live or die.
Click to expand...


You really are about a fucking idiot, aren't you?

Have you never read ANY of our Founding Documents?

Do you not understand the very basis that ALL of our Founding Documents stand on?

It's called "Natural Law".

You're just a nasty little man that needs to be locked up somewhere....  Permanently


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> No, I am saying that we shouldn't let the opinions of 200 year ago slaveholders mold our policy. We need a policy that works for us, now.
> 
> Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us.  Get it?



I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.  




JoeB131 said:


> No, that's EXACTLY what they do, when they fight against background checks, waiting periods, and more importantly, market military grade weapons to the civilian market.  The purpose is to keep Nancy Lanza just scared enough so she wants to buy more guns, too.



My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.






JoeB131 said:


> No, design is probably the overriding factor.  While the car makers are striving to make their products safer every year, the gun makers are striving to make their products deadlier.



Again unsubtantiable opinon. Unsuported and in fact contradicted. If it were true that design mattered, than guns ought to be the number one killer in america by your defintion. They are not.  



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I understant it perfectly,
> 
> There ARE no rights.  Never were. There is what society will let you have.
> 
> And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war.  And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.



Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.


----------



## MisterBeale

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or-
> 
> 1) We get SCOTUS justices who realize the 2nd Amendment is about militias.
> 
> 2) We hold the gun industry responsible for the damage their product cause, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY.
> 
> 3) We require strict licensing, insurance, etc. that will make guns too expensive to own for the Cleetus segement.
> 
> 4) We put huge taxes on guns and firearms, which do the same.
> 
> Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Accept it's not about just militias. The people who wrote it said so. Go back and read the federalist papers citations I posted.
> 
> 2) Actually no, we don't go after ford when someone kills a family driving drunk in their Focus.
> 
> 3) Statistically we should all be more concerned about you and the damage you'll cause with your car even though you do have insurance and licensing.
> 
> 4) You can not tax rights.
> 
> 0 for 4. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Who gives a fuck what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought.  It's what WE think it is now that matters.  This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.
> 
> When gangsters were shooting eachother with Tommy Guns and Sawed off shotguns during prohibition, they didn't say, "Well, what would Tommy Jefferson do when he was done raping Sally Hemmings?"  They banned the shit out of that stuff.
> 
> 2) Ford doesn't go around marketting their product to drunk drivers and that crazy lady who try to ram the White House YEsterday.  The Gun Industry does.  A better comparison would be the Tobacco industry, which WAS found liable when it was realized they marketted their products to children and spiked them to make them more addictive.  The gun industry is marketting to the Nancy Lanzas of the world, resisting any background checks, and making guns more deadly to appeal to the tiny penis crowd.
> 
> 3) Statistically, no, guns are more dangerous, because unilke a car, they are designed to kill people.
> 
> 4) We can tax whatever the fuck we want, and there are no "rights".  Any fool who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".  It can't be a right if it can be taken away from you.
> 
> What we have are privilages that the rest of society lets you have.  If you abuse the privilage, you lose it.   As far as I'm concerned, the gun nuts lost the privilage the minute nutjobs engaged in mass shootings, and they resisted ANY attempts to tighten background checks.
> 
> 4)
Click to expand...


I don't know why people bother spending time with you.  You don't know how to think logically.  Do you really want to know reasonably logical truth?  I highly doubt it.  People try to reason with you, but you won't listen to reason.  People post statistics and proof for you, but you won't look at it.  You are stubborn as an ass, so everyone should ignore you.

This is the Web's number one thinker, has a Phd in philosophy, etc.  He actually is Canadian and comes from a nation with strict gun control.  He will tell you why you are wrong.  If you don't listen, everyone here will, and they will know why you are spouting off fallacies and incoherent, illogical thinking.  After that?  I'll not bother with you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg]The Truth About Gun Control - YouTube[/ame]

Did any one catch that?  The most mass murder incidents were in 1929.  So why are the liberals so heated about gun control?  Can we get off it all ready?

If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to  http://www.freedomainradio.com


----------



## RKMBrown

Libs want to make sure we are all disarmed when they go on their rampage killing women and children.


----------



## Edgetho

RKMBrown said:


> Libs want to make sure we are all disarmed when they go on their rampage killing women and children.



No.

They, themselves won't do it.

They'll get the lower classes to do it for them while they stand idly by in silent approval.

You can already see signs of it if you watch the news and go to alternate news-sites where they report the real, uncensored news.  

Get my drift??

They?  Themselves?



There is no more craven coward on Earth than an American dimocrap.


----------



## RKMBrown

Edgetho said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs want to make sure we are all disarmed when they go on their rampage killing women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They, themselves won't do it.
> 
> They'll get the lower classes to do it for them while they stand idly by in silent approval.
> 
> You can already see signs of it if you watch the news and go to alternate news-sites where they report the real, uncensored news.
> 
> Get my drift??
> 
> They?  Themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more craven coward on Earth than an American dimocrap.
Click to expand...

The dimo's are comprised of four or more disparate groups.  There's the one group that make a living selling drugs and collecting welfare.  This group is well armed.  You'll find them at all the good riots collecting goods from the local retailers.  

Then there's the very very rich well to do democrats, the soros & obama crowd who use government as a tool to collect tax payer funds.

Then there's the progressive idiot crowd.  I suspect this is the one you are talking about.  These are the folks who are following the pony tailed education they got that tells them up is down and down is up.  Yeah those folks are the ones that encourage our enemies and are not likely to lift a finger to defend even their own families let alone go out and fight for anything.

Then we are left with the government employees, ice, the atf, the fbi, the cia, the tsa gropers, the IRS agents, etc...  These are the guys that are expected to follow orders to kill women and children, such as that lady that tried to get away from the WH yesterday.  I'm sure there are some republicans in this group, not sure what the % is though and peer pressure is tough.

Who do we have?  We have the military and militias and hunters and and and ... you know the guys who the democrats are trying to disarm.


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs want to make sure we are all disarmed when they go on their rampage killing women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They, themselves won't do it.
> 
> They'll get the lower classes to do it for them while they stand idly by in silent approval.
> 
> You can already see signs of it if you watch the news and go to alternate news-sites where they report the real, uncensored news.
> 
> Get my drift??
> 
> They?  Themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more craven coward on Earth than an American dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dimo's are comprised of four or more disparate groups.  There's the one group that make a living selling drugs and collecting welfare.  This group is well armed.  You'll find them at all the good riots collecting goods from the local retailers.
> 
> Then there's the very very rich well to do democrats, the soros & obama crowd who use government as a tool to collect tax payer funds.
> 
> Then there's the progressive idiot crowd.  I suspect this is the one you are talking about.  These are the folks who are following the pony tailed education they got that tells them up is down and down is up.  Yeah those folks are the ones that encourage our enemies and are not likely to lift a finger to defend even their own families let alone *go out and fight for anything*.
> 
> Then we are left with the government employees, ice, the atf, the fbi, the cia, the tsa gropers, the IRS agents, etc...  These are the guys that are expected to follow orders to kill women and children, such as that lady that tried to get away from the WH yesterday.  I'm sure there are some republicans in this group, not sure what the % is though and peer pressure is tough.
> 
> Who do we have?  We have the military and militias and hunters and and and ... you know the guys who the democrats are trying to disarm.
Click to expand...



Then there are those internet wags who see the world as one big video game survivalist jungle where everything you want in life comes as the result of some kind of "fight". 
You know, the real deep thinkers...


----------



## RKMBrown

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> They, themselves won't do it.
> 
> They'll get the lower classes to do it for them while they stand idly by in silent approval.
> 
> You can already see signs of it if you watch the news and go to alternate news-sites where they report the real, uncensored news.
> 
> Get my drift??
> 
> They?  Themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more craven coward on Earth than an American dimocrap.
> 
> 
> 
> The dimo's are comprised of four or more disparate groups.  There's the one group that make a living selling drugs and collecting welfare.  This group is well armed.  You'll find them at all the good riots collecting goods from the local retailers.
> 
> Then there's the very very rich well to do democrats, the soros & obama crowd who use government as a tool to collect tax payer funds.
> 
> Then there's the progressive idiot crowd.  I suspect this is the one you are talking about.  These are the folks who are following the pony tailed education they got that tells them up is down and down is up.  Yeah those folks are the ones that encourage our enemies and are not likely to lift a finger to defend even their own families let alone *go out and fight for anything*.
> 
> Then we are left with the government employees, ice, the atf, the fbi, the cia, the tsa gropers, the IRS agents, etc...  These are the guys that are expected to follow orders to kill women and children, such as that lady that tried to get away from the WH yesterday.  I'm sure there are some republicans in this group, not sure what the % is though and peer pressure is tough.
> 
> Who do we have?  We have the military and militias and hunters and and and ... you know the guys who the democrats are trying to disarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those internet wags who see the world as one big video game survivalist jungle where everything you want in life comes as the result of some kind of "fight".
> You know, the real deep thinkers...
Click to expand...


Yes, you are one of "those" people that think things should be easy and free (paid for by blood and effort from someone other than yourself) and not require putting up any effort or fight at all.  Your right to welfare is is a dictate in the constitution, correct?


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dimo's are comprised of four or more disparate groups.  There's the one group that make a living selling drugs and collecting welfare.  This group is well armed.  You'll find them at all the good riots collecting goods from the local retailers.
> 
> Then there's the very very rich well to do democrats, the soros & obama crowd who use government as a tool to collect tax payer funds.
> 
> Then there's the progressive idiot crowd.  I suspect this is the one you are talking about.  These are the folks who are following the pony tailed education they got that tells them up is down and down is up.  Yeah those folks are the ones that encourage our enemies and are not likely to lift a finger to defend even their own families let alone *go out and fight for anything*.
> 
> Then we are left with the government employees, ice, the atf, the fbi, the cia, the tsa gropers, the IRS agents, etc...  These are the guys that are expected to follow orders to kill women and children, such as that lady that tried to get away from the WH yesterday.  I'm sure there are some republicans in this group, not sure what the % is though and peer pressure is tough.
> 
> Who do we have?  We have the military and militias and hunters and and and ... you know the guys who the democrats are trying to disarm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those internet wags who see the world as one big video game survivalist jungle where everything you want in life comes as the result of some kind of "fight".
> You know, the real deep thinkers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are one of "those" people that think things should be easy and free (paid for by blood and effort from someone other than yourself) and not require putting up any effort or fight at all.  Your right to welfare is is a dictate in the constitution, correct?
Click to expand...


Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno.  And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.

Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.


----------



## kaz

Care4all said:


> I haven't read the thread, only the op's question, and in my opinion, we should go after the criminals that supply ''the black market'' with the guns that are sold illegally...
> 
> who is supplying the black market with these guns so that any criminal that wants one can buy one off the street in 15 minutes?



Well, that goes right to the question in the op.  That's exactly what the strategy with drugs is, go after the dealers.  And it's not working at all.  So, why is it going to work for guns when it doesn't work for drugs?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are those internet wags who see the world as one big video game survivalist jungle where everything you want in life comes as the result of some kind of "fight".
> You know, the real deep thinkers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are one of "those" people that think things should be easy and free (paid for by blood and effort from someone other than yourself) and not require putting up any effort or fight at all.  Your right to welfare is is a dictate in the constitution, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno.  And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.
> 
> Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.
Click to expand...


I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are one of "those" people that think things should be easy and free (paid for by blood and effort from someone other than yourself) and not require putting up any effort or fight at all.  Your right to welfare is is a dictate in the constitution, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno.  And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.
> 
> Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?
Click to expand...



I did that in post 1116.  And I got a nice red herring for it, just in time for lunch. ::urp::
Something about "welfare", which has zero to do with the good-vs-evil dichotomy that I actually posted about.

Btw I agree with your previous post, the drug dealer analogy.  We can't address cultural values by throwing laws at them.  We should have learned that with Prohibition.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno.  And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.
> 
> Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did that in post 1116.  And I got a nice red herring for it, just in time for lunch. ::urp::
> Something about "welfare", which has zero to do with the good-vs-evil dichotomy that I actually posted about.
> 
> Btw I agree with your previous post, the drug dealer analogy.  We can't address cultural values by throwing laws at them.  We should have learned that with Prohibition.
Click to expand...


Yes, cultural values is the issue.  There isn't a clear societal view to get rid of drugs or guns regardless of one's position on them.  Abortion, the death penalty being other examples.  I have different positions on those issues, I'm just saying the minority or even a plurality will not be effective forcing it's will on everyone.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Who gives a fuck what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought.  It's what WE think it is now that matters.  This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.



As concerned as I am about what flies with you, let's discuss how the Constitution is to be changed.

Originally, they put 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 in order to change the Constitution.  Does that process still fly with you?  Or has that changed as well?


----------



## kaz

MisterBeale said:


> If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to  http://www.freedomainradio.com



Good video, mister beale.  I like the way they put the Europe argument, correlation doesn't prove causation.  Saying "The UK" isn't an argument.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us.  Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
Click to expand...


That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.


----------



## MisterBeale

kaz said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to  http://www.freedomainradio.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good video, mister beale.  I like the way they put the Europe argument, correlation doesn't prove causation.  Saying "The UK" isn't an argument.
Click to expand...


That's why he's the net's number one philosopher.  He distills all issues down, avoiding all logical fallacies.  Logic is, after all, a sub-discipline of philosophy.  It is training the brain to think.  There is no partisan agenda to any of his videos, just facts and reason.

It's like going to Spock for advice.


----------



## JoeB131

Edgetho said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There ARE no rights.  Never were. There is what society will let you have. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are about a fucking idiot, aren't you?
> 
> Have you never read ANY of our Founding Documents?
> 
> Do you not understand the very basis that ALL of our Founding Documents stand on?
> 
> It's called "Natural Law".
> 
> You're just a nasty little man that needs to be locked up somewhere....  Permanently
Click to expand...


Natural Law is bullshit.  

And no, I don't take the musing of guys who talked about equality and freedom, and then went home and raped teenage girls that they owned, terribly seriously.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.



The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.   

Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver. 

Now think about it.  None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation.    Now imagine if they had guns.  







Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's EXACTLY what they do, when they fight against background checks, waiting periods, and more importantly, market military grade weapons to the civilian market.  The purpose is to keep Nancy Lanza just scared enough so she wants to buy more guns, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.
Click to expand...


Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.  

This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider

And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.   





Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, design is probably the overriding factor.  While the car makers are striving to make their products safer every year, the gun makers are striving to make their products deadlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again unsubtantiable opinon. Unsuported and in fact contradicted. If it were true that design mattered, than guns ought to be the number one killer in america by your defintion. They are not.
Click to expand...


Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime.  Car accidents are largely excused.  So, no, not really.  Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame.  People use their cars every day.  Most people do not use their guns every day. 



Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I understant it perfectly,
> 
> There ARE no rights.  Never were. There is what society will let you have.
> 
> And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war.  And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.
Click to expand...


No, it proves they are a figment.  

Old Ito probably thought he had rights.  Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration.  No trial. no right to his property.  

Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong.  Ummm.  Nope.  The SCOTUS found in _Korematsu vs. US _that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory.  And I'll bet they even took away their guns.  

Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable".  We were at war.  The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing.  And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.
> 
> Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.
> 
> Now think about it.  None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation.    Now imagine if they had guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.
> 
> This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider
> 
> And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime.  Car accidents are largely excused.  So, no, not really.  Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame.  People use their cars every day.  Most people do not use their guns every day.
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I understant it perfectly,
> 
> There ARE no rights.  Never were. There is what society will let you have.
> 
> And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war.  And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves they are a figment.
> 
> Old Ito probably thought he had rights.  Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration.  No trial. no right to his property.
> 
> Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong.  Ummm.  Nope.  The SCOTUS found in _Korematsu vs. US _that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory.  And I'll bet they even took away their guns.
> 
> Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable".  We were at war.  The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing.  And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.
Click to expand...


Well except the Courts did NOT find it justified at all. But you keep lying, it suits you.

As to guns are designed tio kill argument and that that is all they are good for, we have over 300 million guns in private hands yet less than 11000 murders a year, kinda proves your claim is absolute BULLSHIT.

And again since according to you , guns are designed solely to kill why woiuld insurance pay for a firearm doing its job? You have yet to display for us a defective firearm.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> 
> Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong.  Ummm.  Nope.  The SCOTUS found in _Korematsu vs. US _that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory.  And I'll bet they even took away their guns.
> 
> Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable".  We were at war.  The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing.  And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.



Well except the Courts did NOT find it justified at all. But you keep lying, it suits you.[/QUOTE]

No, actually, they did.  

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> As to guns are designed tio kill argument and that that is all they are good for, we have over 300 million guns in private hands yet less than 11000 murders a year, kinda proves your claim is absolute BULLSHIT.



Uh, no, not really.  We have more than 32,000 gun deaths a year. and 79,000 gun injuries. 

But if we were to apply your logic to airplane hijackings, the fact is, on the day of 9/11, there were 1500 airliners in the air.  ONly four of them were flown into buildings. 30,000 flights a day.  9 million a year.  And yet we pass all these crazy new laws because four planes were used one time to crash into buildings and kill people?  

Kind of see the point, there, guy.  When something is potentially dangerous and is misused, if you have a lick of sense, you make sure it doesn't happen again.  





RetiredGySgt said:


> And again since according to you , guns are designed solely to kill why woiuld insurance pay for a firearm doing its job? You have yet to display for us a defective firearm.



And now you went off on a tangent.  Fact is, most gun deaths, insurance doesn't pay.


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher)



This again is begging the question.  A favorite liberal tactic.  I am saying what you are doing isn't working.  Your answer to the question in the op, HOW you're going to do it, is to assume that what you are doing now will work, which it doesn't.  Again, that's called begging the question.

My solution is to allow people to defend themselves.  I am conceding nothing like the words you put in my mouth.  So again, here's what's wrong with your strategy.

Say a gun costs $400, you're saying you'll take steps to increase the price.   If it goes to $500, it probably has little affect.  As it goes to $600, at some point you incent those already dealing drugs and new players to start finding and buying guns in people's private collections and buying them overseas and smuggling.  The criminals buy these guns, honest Americans don't.  So, you end up with.

1)  What happens with drugs now, which was my point.

2)  Criminals have guns and honest citizens don't, which is what we have now.

You are the one who's giving up on addressing the murders by waiving your hands and saying combining what we are doing now with guns and drugs, neither of which work now, bam, will suddenly work!  If we give it enough time...


----------



## Bern80

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us.  Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
Click to expand...


I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.


----------



## Pogo

Bern80 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. *The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns*. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
Click to expand...


Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object.  A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event.  But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun.  So clearly both are required.

The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish.  A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it.  But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily,  is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance.  If that's what one's mental state demands. 

The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves.  To our own cultural icon we are underlings.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.
> 
> Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.
> 
> Now think about it.  None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation.    Now imagine if they had guns.



And there isn't a person that isn't potentially dangerous with a car. And the commonality of these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality is a person with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, The WV guy. And I notice you're not concerned about cars over the gal that just went on a rampage in one in DC.  







JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.
> 
> This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider
> 
> And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.



Uh, that's entirely seperate issue from what you said, 'guy'. You said gun manufacturer's market to murderers. That's rather different than who has what influence on the NRA. Stop trying to change the subject. Pick one topic and stick with it.    







JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime.  Car accidents are largely excused.  So, no, not really.  Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame.  People use their cars every day.  Most people do not use their guns every day.



If you really want to get this as apples to apples as it can get then you also must figure intent into the equation. Yes, if you intentionally go and kill someone with a gun it will be treated as a crime. If you intentionlly kill someone with your car, trust me, you won't be 'excused'. Even if accidental death with either case, there is an equally reasonable chance you could be charged with manslaughter



JoeB131 said:


> No, it proves they are a figment.
> 
> Old Ito probably thought he had rights.  Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration.  No trial. no right to his property.
> 
> Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong.  Ummm.  Nope.  The SCOTUS found in _Korematsu vs. US _that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory.  And I'll bet they even took away their guns.
> 
> Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable".  We were at war.  The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing.  And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.



Which they eventually did. But since most the great philosophers disagree with you on this point, I'm curious how you determined there is no such thing as rights, even the most basic like self determination. Again someone depriving someone of rights does not prove rights don't exist. In the above you again contradict yourself. You say they were apprehended ONLY because of their ancestry than later say well no, it was that plus we were at war.


----------



## Bern80

Pogo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. *The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns*. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object.  A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event.  But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun.  So clearly both are required.
> 
> The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish.  A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it.  But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily,  is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance.  If that's what one's mental state demands.
> 
> The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves.  To our own cultural icon we are underlings.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.


----------



## Pogo

Bern80 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. *The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns*. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object.  A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event.  But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun.  So clearly both are required.
> 
> The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish.  A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it.  But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily,  is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance.  If that's what one's mental state demands.
> 
> The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves.  To our own cultural icon we are underlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me *that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one*. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.
Click to expand...


Uhh.... hello?  Look around you... 


Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people".  What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness.  There's a clue right there.


----------



## Bern80

Pogo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object.  A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event.  But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun.  So clearly both are required.
> 
> The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish.  A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it.  But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily,  is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance.  If that's what one's mental state demands.
> 
> The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves.  To our own cultural icon we are underlings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me *that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one*. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh.... hello?  Look around you...
> 
> 
> Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people".  What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness.  There's a clue right there.
Click to expand...



I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
Click to expand...


It's a good point, but a tricky issue.  Most people with issues don't start shooting people.  Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers.  In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat.  Doesn't that scare you as well?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish



That's an idiotic way to put it.  You obviously don't know any gun owners.

Democrats have a fetish about getting other people's money.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point, but a tricky issue.  Most people with issues don't start shooting people.  Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers.  *In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat*.  Doesn't that scare you as well?
Click to expand...



Who is?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point, but a tricky issue.  Most people with issues don't start shooting people.  Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers.  *In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat*.  Doesn't that scare you as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is?
Click to expand...


Sorry dude, my bad.  I thought you were reading the posts in the discussion you and Bern were having.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point, but a tricky issue.  Most people with issues don't start shooting people.  Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers.  *In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat*.  Doesn't that scare you as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry dude, my bad.  I thought you were reading the posts in the discussion you and Bern were having.
Click to expand...


How could I be in the discussion without reading it?  Doesn't this violate some law of physics?


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dude, my bad.  I thought you were reading the posts in the discussion you and Bern were having.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could I be in the discussion without reading it?  Doesn't this violate some law of physics?
Click to expand...


was any matter created or destroyed?  if not i'm thinking it probably doesn't


----------



## Pogo

Bern80 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me *that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one*. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh.... hello?  Look around you...
> 
> 
> Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people".  What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness.  There's a clue right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.
Click to expand...


I think you said "enamored with" hurting people, and I'm pointing out that's not in their history.  And just to clean up another loose end, where you mentioned Kennedy earlier I believe you're thinking of that other Irish President twenty years later.

The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.  You don't see people doing that with computers or clothes or cars.

This will have to be rhetorical because it would be impractical to do, but try making a list of movies that don't have some kind of gunplay in them.  Then compare that to the frequency with which we see such gunplay in real life.  We're obsessed.  And by "we" I don't mean you or this or that poster who's posting about the Second Amendment; I mean "we" as a culture.  We have elevated (i.e. somebody has elevated) Almighty Gun to some sort of godlike status.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.



And by your standard, as I pointed out, the desire for other people's money is a fetish for Democrats...


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by your standard, as I pointed out, the desire for other people's money is a fetish for Democrats...
Click to expand...


None of the above is in any way connected to money, or to Democrats or any other political party -- or for that matter to politics at all.

Well, not unless you include the NRA, then it's connected to money (and tangentially politics) but that's not the point.


----------



## Bern80

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is it in a nutshell.  Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone.  They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true.  But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point, but a tricky issue.  Most people with issues don't start shooting people.  Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers.  In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat.  Doesn't that scare you as well?
Click to expand...


Yes it does. There's the obvious 4th amendment issues. There would have to be an independent system in place for determining a person's threat to society. Believe me, I get the ramifications. But it was allowed for several decades before it was disallowed.


----------



## Bern80

Pogo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh.... hello?  Look around you...
> 
> 
> Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people".  What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness.  There's a clue right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you said "enamored with" hurting people, and I'm pointing out that's not in their history.  And just to clean up another loose end, where you mentioned Kennedy earlier I believe you're thinking of that other Irish President twenty years later.
> 
> The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.  You don't see people doing that with computers or clothes or cars.
> 
> This will have to be rhetorical because it would be impractical to do, but try making a list of movies that don't have some kind of gunplay in them.  Then compare that to the frequency with which we see such gunplay in real life.  We're obsessed.  And by "we" I don't mean you or this or that poster who's posting about the Second Amendment; I mean "we" as a culture.  We have elevated (i.e. somebody has elevated) Almighty Gun to some sort of godlike status.
Click to expand...


It's possible. Or are we just obsessed with violence? What if guns were never invented? Do think the obsession would be with swordplay in movies? I don't. I don't envision a bunch of people waiting impatiently for the gun part in movies or fast forwarding to them. That's what I picture when people say obsessed. I think the reality is we may be obsessed with make believe violence. If guns weren't the vehicle for it, it would be something else.


----------



## Pogo

Bern80 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I said 'history of hurting people'. I think I said history of mental issues. And The people around me? Like in this thread? Those defending the right to have guns I dont' see as too different from me. I can only speak for myself, but I don't spend great periods of time with 'guns and violence on the brain' so to speak. Most of the time I don't think about them. I don't even obsess over them when using them (for hunting mainly). I think a major component of this debate that gets glossed over is perception. This is really only my opinion, but I think people opinions about guns are shaped by their experience with them. If all you know about guns is what you see in the news and media as portrayed as you describe above, I can see how someone would have a negative opinion of them. That doesn't make the opinion correct. I, on the other hand, grew up in northern Minnesota, hunting as soon as I was legally allowed. I grew up in rural neighborhood, but most people in the neighborhood hunted, so I would guess growing up there were several hundred guns within a square mile of where I lived in private hands. Yet no one ever died from one or was even shot by one or even threatened by one that I'm aware of. None of the people I grew up hunting with seemed overly infatuated with their guns. Rather they're treated simply as a tool. Granted a tool to be treated responsibly, but to me saying people who want defend the right to bear arms have a gun fetish is kind of like saying a home builder has a hammer fetish. I get why some may think their is an obsession because when the conversation comes up about banning them or heavily regulation of course I and a lot of people start getting pretty adamant about being able to keep them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you said "enamored with" hurting people, and I'm pointing out that's not in their history.  And just to clean up another loose end, where you mentioned Kennedy earlier I believe you're thinking of that other Irish President twenty years later.
> 
> The "people around us" means not necessarily in this thread (I don't know what the whole population is) but when you've got posters on the board naming themselves after guns, using them in their avatars, posting invitations to gun shows and generally jumping in to promote gun worship at every shred of an opportunity, then yeah I'd say that's a fetish.  You don't see people doing that with computers or clothes or cars.
> 
> This will have to be rhetorical because it would be impractical to do, but try making a list of movies that don't have some kind of gunplay in them.  Then compare that to the frequency with which we see such gunplay in real life.  We're obsessed.  And by "we" I don't mean you or this or that poster who's posting about the Second Amendment; I mean "we" as a culture.  We have elevated (i.e. somebody has elevated) Almighty Gun to some sort of godlike status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible. Or are we just obsessed with violence? What if guns were never invented? Do think the obsession would be with swordplay in movies? I don't. I don't envision a bunch of people waiting impatiently for the gun part in movies or fast forwarding to them. That's what I picture when people say obsessed. I think the reality is we may be obsessed with make believe violence. If guns weren't the vehicle for it, it would be something else.
Click to expand...



Yes, absolutely -- we _are _obsessed with violence, that's the basis underlying the gun fetish.  And no doubt, if guns did not exist it would be some other technology front and center.  That's why I define this as a cultural value.  A culture that has precious little respect for Life, and that's where it starts.



> I don't envision a bunch of people waiting impatiently for the gun part in movies or fast forwarding to them.



I believe that's porno. 
 Not that it's a great deal of difference; gunplay in pop culture is in effect gun-porn.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bern80 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point, but a tricky issue.  Most people with issues don't start shooting people.  Another issue is that if you start locking people up for what they say in large enough numbers, they will hear that's happening and refuse to talk to mental health providers.  In the end, we're talking about people taking away someone else's freedom based on a perceived threat.  Doesn't that scare you as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. There's the obvious 4th amendment issues. There would have to be an independent system in place for determining a person's threat to society. Believe me, I get the ramifications. But it was allowed for several decades before it was disallowed.
Click to expand...


We already HAVE the law and the means to involuntarily commit people. All one need do is bring them before a Judge and have him rule they should be put involuntarily in a mental facility. The ruling is usually stated as they are either a threat to self or others and are incompetent.

The problem with the last few crazies is NO ONE wants to actually do the part of reporting them. Or when they are reported the cops do not want to take it to a judge. In most if not all States a therapist or a Shrink are required by law to report any patient that makes threatening statements or the health care official believes is a threat to self or others.

They tell their patients on the first meeting or when the topic comes up about that requirement. Believe me mine told me.

The Judge orders a review and observation by pertinent health workers at an appropriate facility. And usually schedules another hearing for a few days later or how ever long after that the specific law allows.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.



But where does THAT stop? 

Incidently, you have it wrong.  It was in teh Carter years that the courts ruled that you can't incacerate the mentally ill against their will. That's when a whole bunch of "Homeless" people started showing up (and Reagan unfairly got the blame for).  Can't function in the real world, no institution would take them if they weren't imminently dangerous.  

The flip side to that is where do you draw that line.  Two of the "pro-gun" posters on this very thread (I won't embarrass them by pointing them out) have admitted to severe pyschological disorders.  One of them has admitted to severe paranoia he takes three drugs to control.  The other is Bi-Polar and admits that he doesn't have coverage to get treatment. (And he STILL thinks ObamaCare is an awful idea.)  But the two of them insist UP AND DOWN that they should be able to get guns because the Founding Slave Rapists said they should.  

Yes, it is unfortunate that the crazy aren't getting the treatment they need. But you know what, that lady who went on the rampage in Washington didn't get anyone killed but herself. 

Because cars, unlike guns, aren't designed to kill people.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But where does THAT stop?
> 
> Incidently, you have it wrong.  It was in teh Carter years that the courts ruled that you can't incacerate the mentally ill against their will. That's when a whole bunch of "Homeless" people started showing up (and Reagan unfairly got the blame for).  Can't function in the real world, no institution would take them if they weren't imminently dangerous.
> 
> The flip side to that is where do you draw that line.  Two of the "pro-gun" posters on this very thread (I won't embarrass them by pointing them out) have admitted to severe pyschological disorders.  One of them has admitted to severe paranoia he takes three drugs to control.  The other is Bi-Polar and admits that he doesn't have coverage to get treatment. (And he STILL thinks ObamaCare is an awful idea.)  But the two of them insist UP AND DOWN that they should be able to get guns because the Founding Slave Rapists said they should.
> 
> Yes, it is unfortunate that the crazy aren't getting the treatment they need. But you know what, that lady who went on the rampage in Washington didn't get anyone killed but herself.
> 
> Because cars, unlike guns, aren't designed to kill people.
Click to expand...


He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> [
> 
> He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?



Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues. 

And frankly, I respect their candor.  I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.
> 
> And frankly, I respect their candor.  I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.
Click to expand...


What does it prove then?


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> He was yanking your chain. Why would anyone talk about an official diagnosis on a forum board. Or are you making this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.
> 
> And frankly, I respect their candor.  I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it prove then?
Click to expand...


I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.  

But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.  

Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.
> 
> And frankly, I respect their candor.  I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it prove then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.
> 
> But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.
> 
> Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.
Click to expand...


Pointing out a few people you know and judging them is disingenuous. People like to tell stories, especially on forums like this. Most relevant is that it is illegal for mentally ill people to own guns. The government needs to enforce the laws or at least try, which I doubt they are doing. You should call for this kind of action, instead of making endless moot points.


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> [
> 
> Pointing out a few people you know and judging them is disingenuous. People like to tell stories, especially on forums like this. Most relevant is that it is illegal for mentally ill people to own guns. The government needs to enforce the laws or at least try, which I doubt they are doing. You should call for this kind of action, instead of making endless moot points.



It's illegal to have sex for money, yet there is a massage parlor not one mile from where I am at that operated for about three months before the cops shut it down last week.  

A law that isn't enforced, or worse, people are intentionally trying to get around, is like having no law at all.  

WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns. 

They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.


----------



## Geaux4it

My plan? Buy more guns and supply my neighbors when the lockdown comes

An armed society is a peaceful society

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

I just clicked in to see whether Geaux is still running that bogus Putin quote.

Why am I not surprised...


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> I just clicked in to see whether Geaux is still running that bogus Putin quote.
> 
> Why am I not surprised...



bogus? Maybe. Factual, perhaps. 

-Geaux


----------



## Noomi

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



By your logic, drugs should be legal because you can't stop people from buying them, or selling them.
Murder should also be legal because you can't stop someone from killing, can you?

Ban guns, make them illegal, and turn 90% of Americans into criminals. I like the sound of that.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just clicked in to see whether Geaux is still running that bogus Putin quote.
> 
> Why am I not surprised...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bogus? Maybe. Factual, perhaps.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


So you're saying.. "it doesn't matter whether he said it or not... I'd like for him to have said it".

Thanks for that confirmation.



















Not even original, dood.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.
> 
> And frankly, I respect their candor.  I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it prove then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.
> 
> But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.
> 
> Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.
Click to expand...


A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.

It is not reasonable what you propose.

And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge. 

My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.

But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.

he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.


----------



## hazlnut

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tv9BeOkRTc]How Easy Felons Can Buy Guns At Gun Shows - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## hazlnut

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zZnvo_x5tA]UNDERCOVER VIDEO SHOWS ILLEGAL SALE AT ARIZONA GUN SHOW - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## hazlnut

Make it a FEDERAL CRIME TO SELL A GUN, A DEADLY WEAPON, TO A STRANGER WITHOUT A BACKGROUND CHECK!!

We'll live with the "Friends and Family" exception, although some of you nutters will exploit it.

BUT PRIVATE SALES MUST HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But where does THAT stop?
> 
> Incidently, you have it wrong.  It was in teh Carter years that the courts ruled that you can't incacerate the mentally ill against their will. That's when a whole bunch of "Homeless" people started showing up (and Reagan unfairly got the blame for).  Can't function in the real world, no institution would take them if they weren't imminently dangerous.
> 
> The flip side to that is where do you draw that line.  Two of the "pro-gun" posters on this very thread (I won't embarrass them by pointing them out) have admitted to severe pyschological disorders.  One of them has admitted to severe paranoia he takes three drugs to control.  The other is Bi-Polar and admits that he doesn't have coverage to get treatment. (And he STILL thinks ObamaCare is an awful idea.)  But the two of them insist UP AND DOWN that they should be able to get guns because the Founding Slave Rapists said they should.
> 
> Yes, it is unfortunate that the crazy aren't getting the treatment they need. But you know what, that lady who went on the rampage in Washington didn't get anyone killed but herself.
> 
> Because cars, unlike guns, aren't designed to kill people.
Click to expand...


I realize it is a slippery slope, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient solution to the problem than taking away the guns of law abiding citizens in an attempt to stop people that don't abide the law in the first place.

So what if she didn't? You know as well as I do had she been waving a gun around yet caused no more damage your reaction would be vastly different because you are hung up on objects rather than the real problem; people.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.
> 
> It is not reasonable what you propose.
> 
> And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.
> 
> My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.
> 
> But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.
> 
> he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.



How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"?  It's a contradiction. 

If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition. 

And that crazy is controlled by a medication frankly isn't much of an assurance. I used to work with a guy who was schizophrenic, who had assured our employer that when on his meds, he was fine.  

By the time they fired him, he was cursing at the light fixtures and the girls on the plant floor were terrified of him.  

But no judge had "adjudicated" him incompetent, so he could have come in one morning with a gun and taken them all out. (The girls, I mean, not the light fixtures.)


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.
> 
> It is not reasonable what you propose.
> 
> And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.
> 
> My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.
> 
> But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.
> 
> he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"?  It's a contradiction.
> 
> If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition.
> 
> And that crazy is controlled by a medication frankly isn't much of an assurance. I used to work with a guy who was schizophrenic, who had assured our employer that when on his meds, he was fine.
> 
> By the time they fired him, he was cursing at the light fixtures and the girls on the plant floor were terrified of him.
> 
> But no judge had "adjudicated" him incompetent, so he could have come in one morning with a gun and taken them all out. (The girls, I mean, not the light fixtures.)
Click to expand...


Or we could go with option c. We accept that life has risks and that it not the role of government to legislate all risk out of life. We seem content accepting the risk involved in the existence of other objects, like cars. We have the statistics. We know by their very existence there is a level of danger, injury and loss of life that can and WILL occur. But we also realize that the vast majority of people that operate these devices are not dangerous. That the vast majority of the objects themselves will never be involved in any level of violence or accident and as such it is nonsensical to deprive the vast majority of people of that object for the sake of preventing injury and death from an extremely small minority.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it. And the current laws about who can and can not own firearms has been tested in court several times.
> 
> It is not reasonable what you propose.
> 
> And again for the disingenuous, one is only restricted from owning firearms if adjudged by competent authority to be incompetent. I have never been so judged nor has any of the several shrinks I have had nor therapists ever had cause to report me as a danger to anyone else. When I attempted suicide I was involuntarily committed but that was changed to voluntary when I talked to my shrink, I never went before a judge.
> 
> My paranoia is no danger to you or anyone else. I have lived with it my whole life. I am 56 I have owned firearms since I was 18 and been around firearms my whole life. I served almost 16 years in the Marine Corps.
> 
> But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.
> 
> he has stated he does not respect nor feel the Constitution should be adhered to. Just what he wants should happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"?  It's a contradiction.
> 
> If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition.
> 
> And that crazy is controlled by a medication frankly isn't much of an assurance. I used to work with a guy who was schizophrenic, who had assured our employer that when on his meds, he was fine.
> 
> By the time they fired him, he was cursing at the light fixtures and the girls on the plant floor were terrified of him.
> 
> But no judge had "adjudicated" him incompetent, so he could have come in one morning with a gun and taken them all out. (The girls, I mean, not the light fixtures.)
Click to expand...


The only thing the meds do is control my desire to kill myself. They have nothing to do with your supposed claim I am a threat to others.


----------



## kaz

Noomi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your logic, drugs should be legal because you can't stop people from buying them, or selling them.
Click to expand...

True, they should be legal



Noomi said:


> Murder should also be legal because you can't stop someone from killing, can you?


The standard in the op was that any high school kid can all get drugs, and they get away with it.

Few high school kids can commit murder and get away with it.  So no, it's not by "my logic" that murder should be legal.  If it's by your logic, make the argument.



Noomi said:


> Ban guns, make them illegal, and turn 90% of Americans into criminals. I like the sound of that.





I don't know if this is supposed to be serious or sarcastic or what it means.  I'm good with sarcasm to enhance the point, but there has to actually be a point.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the two individuals I am speaking of have spoken repeatedly about their issues.
> 
> And frankly, I respect their candor.  I suspect a lot more of you are seriously messed up, but wont' admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it prove then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that what it proves is that if you say that gun ownership is a "right", then even the most mentally ill, no matter how much of a time-bomb he might be, has a legal ability to buy a gun.
> 
> But if you say that gun ownership is a privilage, then you really can screen who should have access to weapons and set up a criteria based on need and suitability.
> 
> Which would weed out Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Alexis, etc.
Click to expand...


I have three words for you due pro cess.

Oops, your argument just vanished...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A right can have reasonable restrictions placed on it.
> 
> 
> 
> How can you have "reasonable" restrictions of a "right"?  It's a contradiction.
> 
> If yo accept something is a right, it is unrestricted by that definition
Click to expand...


On this point, bam, you nailed it!

Though again, rights can be restricted with due process of law.  There is nothing wrong with making it illegal for a convicted felon to buy a gun any more than restricting their right to vote.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.
> 
> They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.



You'd drive them out of business because they have no control over where guns go, it's the distribution network that does that.  then just like drugs, overseas dealers would take over.  You've over and over repeated that your answer to the question of how you're going to make gun laws work when drug laws don't is you want gun laws to work like drug laws.

So, if you want to do that, you have to explain why it will work.  Hence, the question in the op.


----------



## kaz

RetiredGySgt said:


> But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.



Yes, he does.  And he says he was in the military, and he thinks the primary purpose of guns is for killing people.  Only sick people like him should be armed.  And bam, we are safe and free!


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> Or we could go with option c. We accept that life has risks and that it not the role of government to legislate all risk out of life. We seem content accepting the risk involved in the existence of other objects, like cars. We have the statistics. We know by their very existence there is a level of danger, injury and loss of life that can and WILL occur. But we also realize that the vast majority of people that operate these devices are not dangerous. That the vast majority of the objects themselves will never be involved in any level of violence or accident and as such it is nonsensical to deprive the vast majority of people of that object for the sake of preventing injury and death from an extremely small minority.



Since there is NO benefit to private citizens having guns and lots of benefits from keeping crazy people from having them, you've kind of "statistically" made the point against gun ownership. 

Congratulations!


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he does.  And he says he was in the military, and he thinks the primary purpose of guns is for killing people.  Only sick people like him should be armed.  And bam, we are safe and free!
Click to expand...


Well, no guy, when I had a gun in the military, I was RESPONSIBLE for the soldiers in my squad, and in turn, the Officers above me were responsible for my actions.  

Which meant if I started exhibiting paranoid or dangerous tendencies, they had a responsibility to reel me in.  

Get it?


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.
> 
> They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd drive them out of business because they have no control over where guns go, it's the distribution network that does that.  then just like drugs, overseas dealers would take over.  You've over and over repeated that your answer to the question of how you're going to make gun laws work when drug laws don't is you want gun laws to work like drug laws.
> 
> So, if you want to do that, you have to explain why it will work.  Hence, the question in the op.
Click to expand...


But that's the point. They'd have EVERY bit of control over where the guns go.  

Credit Card companies spend BILLIONS making sure that they are going to get paid back.  they create "credit reports" on every last one of us and monitor our spending habits.  

You hit a gun manufacturer with an eight figure settlement, guess what, they are going to tighten down REAL fast on how their product is "distributed".  

Just like every other manufacturer.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> The only thing the meds do is control my desire to kill myself. They have nothing to do with your supposed claim I am a threat to others.



I don't find that terribly reassuring.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Or we could go with option c. We accept that life has risks and that it not the role of government to legislate all risk out of life. We seem content accepting the risk involved in the existence of other objects, like cars. We have the statistics. We know by their very existence there is a level of danger, injury and loss of life that can and WILL occur. But we also realize that the vast majority of people that operate these devices are not dangerous. That the vast majority of the objects themselves will never be involved in any level of violence or accident and as such it is nonsensical to deprive the vast majority of people of that object for the sake of preventing injury and death from an extremely small minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is NO benefit to private citizens having guns and lots of benefits from keeping crazy people from having them, you've kind of "statistically" made the point against gun ownership.
> 
> Congratulations!
Click to expand...


The above is so stupid it doesn't even make sense. Get it through your skull Joe. Benefit/need is irellevant. It is an invalid argument. We don't go around telling people what they can or can't have based on whether they need it or not. There is no reason to do so where guns are concerned because relatively speaking they pose very little threat to society at large.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.
> 
> They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd drive them out of business because they have no control over where guns go, it's the distribution network that does that.  then just like drugs, overseas dealers would take over.  You've over and over repeated that your answer to the question of how you're going to make gun laws work when drug laws don't is you want gun laws to work like drug laws.
> 
> So, if you want to do that, you have to explain why it will work.  Hence, the question in the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the point. They'd have EVERY bit of control over where the guns go.
> 
> Credit Card companies spend BILLIONS making sure that they are going to get paid back.  they create "credit reports" on every last one of us and monitor our spending habits.
> 
> You hit a gun manufacturer with an eight figure settlement, guess what, they are going to tighten down REAL fast on how their product is "distributed".
> 
> Just like every other manufacturer.
Click to expand...


No, not like every other manufacturer. You're not being consistent in your argument. Why are you not insisting we hold the manufacturer of the car the crazy lady in DC used responsible?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But according to Joeb someone should lose rights because Joe is afraid of his shadow. Make no mistake about it he advocates NO ONE that is not in the military or law enforcement should have access to firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he does.  And he says he was in the military, and he thinks the primary purpose of guns is for killing people.  Only sick people like him should be armed.  And bam, we are safe and free!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no guy, when I had a gun in the military, I was RESPONSIBLE for the soldiers in my squad, and in turn, the Officers above me were responsible for my actions.
> 
> Which meant if I started exhibiting paranoid or dangerous tendencies, they had a responsibility to reel me in.
> 
> Get it?
Click to expand...


You said the primary purpose of shooting guns is to kill people, that is sick.  And you want only government to have guns.  That is really sick if the primary purpose of having guns is to kill people.  Think about it, but don't hurt yourself.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHich is why I say, the fastest way to end gun violence- make the gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable with their deep pockets for those killed by guns.
> 
> They'll start screening out the bad apple really fast after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd drive them out of business because they have no control over where guns go, it's the distribution network that does that.  then just like drugs, overseas dealers would take over.  You've over and over repeated that your answer to the question of how you're going to make gun laws work when drug laws don't is you want gun laws to work like drug laws.
> 
> So, if you want to do that, you have to explain why it will work.  Hence, the question in the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the point. They'd have EVERY bit of control over where the guns go.
> 
> Credit Card companies spend BILLIONS making sure that they are going to get paid back.  they create "credit reports" on every last one of us and monitor our spending habits.
> 
> You hit a gun manufacturer with an eight figure settlement, guess what, they are going to tighten down REAL fast on how their product is "distributed".
> 
> Just like every other manufacturer.
Click to expand...


Comparing selling guns or any product to people with extending them ongoing credit is just retarded.

And nobody who manufactures products has the unlimited liability of what their customers do with the product that you are proposing.

You're just proposing to shut them down, which leads us directly to the drugs solution, and the question in the op, which you continually have no answer to.  You just say do what doesn't work with drugs with guns.

And Candy says how we make gun laws work is to do what we do with drugs, only do more of it and wait a long, long time.  She doesn't know why when guns get expensive people won't just start smuggling them in.  It will just work.  If we wait long enough.  And wait, and wait and wait...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The only thing the meds do is control my desire to kill myself. They have nothing to do with your supposed claim I am a threat to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find that terribly reassuring.
Click to expand...


But you do feel secure thinking that if your family can sue the gun manufacturer he won't be able to get a gun because he wouldn't be able to get his hands on any of the millions of guns already in the country or the millions more outside the country that could just be put on a plane or a ship already coming in the country loaded with drugs.

Well, it's your funeral...


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> Comparing selling guns or any product to people with extending them ongoing credit is just retarded.
> 
> And nobody who manufactures products has the unlimited liability of what their customers do with the product that you are proposing.
> 
> You're just proposing to shut them down, which leads us directly to the drugs solution, and the question in the op, which you continually have no answer to.  You just say do what doesn't work with drugs with guns.
> 
> And Candy says how we make gun laws work is to do what we do with drugs, only do more of it and wait a long, long time.  She doesn't know why when guns get expensive people won't just start smuggling them in.  It will just work.  If we wait long enough.  And wait, and wait and wait...



It's easier to manufacture guns than it is drugs.  

I think you also forget WHY drugs were outlawed to start with.  Because before they were made illegal, everyone was doing them.   Doctors routinely recommended cocaine for children, there were a million opium addicts in a population of less than 100 Million.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Comparing selling guns or any product to people with extending them ongoing credit is just retarded.
> 
> And nobody who manufactures products has the unlimited liability of what their customers do with the product that you are proposing.
> 
> You're just proposing to shut them down, which leads us directly to the drugs solution, and the question in the op, which you continually have no answer to.  You just say do what doesn't work with drugs with guns.
> 
> And Candy says how we make gun laws work is to do what we do with drugs, only do more of it and wait a long, long time.  She doesn't know why when guns get expensive people won't just start smuggling them in.  It will just work.  If we wait long enough.  And wait, and wait and wait...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easier to manufacture guns than it is drugs.
Click to expand...

Which totally supports my point



JoeB131 said:


> I think you also forget WHY drugs were outlawed to start with.  Because before they were made illegal, everyone was doing them.   Doctors routinely recommended cocaine for children, there were a million opium addicts in a population of less than 100 Million.



Yes, all hail government, they will save us.  That sucks.  But compare it to present day where fighting the drugs gets us:

1) Funding serious bad guys from the Taliban in Afghanistan to drug cartels in Columbia causing destabilization of those governments and their neighbors and leaving their people living in fear.

2)  Funding organized crime in the United States.

3)  Causing shootouts in the streets and terrorizing inner city neighborhoods into silence.

4)  Allowing massive intrusions into our privacy by the government in the name of finding drug money.

5)  Spending billions and billions we don't have year after year, as opposed to taxing drugs like any other product and bringing in revenue.

Thanks government for helping!  No problem is so big or so complicated that government can't make it worse.  And you want to double down and do the same for guns!  Good thinking.

This is the core of libertarianism, that is inherently so.  Sure, if government could do my charity for me and make good decisions that expanded my liberty and made my life easier, I'd love it too.  The only difference between liberals and me is that I recognize that never happens.  The Obamacare disaster where Obamacare ended up helping no one but government is what happens.  A libertarian is just a liberal or a conservative with their eyes open.


----------



## Steven_R

Government makes no mistakes. When a government program fails to meet expectations, that is just proof not enough government was applied to the problem. More government is obviously needed. Repeat _ad nausium_.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you also forget WHY drugs were outlawed to start with.  Because before they were made illegal, everyone was doing them.   Doctors routinely recommended cocaine for children, there were a million opium addicts in a population of less than 100 Million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all hail government, they will save us.  That sucks.  But compare it to present day where fighting the drugs gets us:
> 
> 1) Funding serious bad guys from the Taliban in Afghanistan to drug cartels in Columbia causing destabilization of those governments and their neighbors and leaving their people living in fear.
> 
> 2)  Funding organized crime in the United States.
> 
> 3)  Causing shootouts in the streets and terrorizing inner city neighborhoods into silence.
> 
> 4)  Allowing massive intrusions into our privacy by the government in the name of finding drug money.
> 
> 5)  Spending billions and billions we don't have year after year, as opposed to taxing drugs like any other product and bringing in revenue.
> 
> Thanks government for helping!  No problem is so big or so complicated that government can't make it worse.  And you want to double down and do the same for guns!  Good thinking.
> 
> This is the core of libertarianism, that is inherently so.  Sure, if government could do my charity for me and make good decisions that expanded my liberty and made my life easier, I'd love it too.  The only difference between liberals and me is that I recognize that never happens.  The Obamacare disaster where Obamacare ended up helping no one but government is what happens.  A libertarian is just a liberal or a conservative with their eyes open.
Click to expand...


I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?  

I mean, even the really bad ideas like Theocracy, Fascism and Communism had a few countries willing to give it a go. 

Is the War on Drugs executed badly?  Absolutely.  They are treating a medical problem like a criminal one. 

Is legallizing drugs the answer?  Not unless you want your kid doing them the minute he's 18.


----------



## Geaux4it

The answer is we need to sell and buy more guns. 

An armed society is a peaceful society

Not to mention, the police have no obligation whatsoever to come to your aid. You are on your own

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> The answer is we need to sell and buy more guns.
> 
> An armed society is a peaceful society
> 
> Not to mention, the police have no obligation whatsoever to come to your aid. You are on your own
> 
> -Geaux



*Governor Jerry Brown Refuses To Sign Bill Banning Semi-Automatic Rifles*

California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Friday that would have banned future sales of most semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, part of a firearms package approved by state lawmakers in response to mass shootings in other states.

The governor announced signing other gun-related legislation but rejected the centerpiece bill, which would have imposed the nations toughest restrictions on gun ownership.

Browns veto message said it was too far-reaching. The bill by Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg would have outlawed future sales of an entire class of weapons that includes most assault rifles.

It was lawmakers latest attempt to close loopholes that have allowed manufacturers to work around previous assault weapon bans. Gun rights groups had threatened to sue if the semi-automatic weapons ban became law.

I dont believe that this bills blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners rights, the Democratic governor wrote in his veto message.

Brown Vetoes Bill Banning Semi-Automatic Rifles - ABC News


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> The answer is we need to sell and buy more guns.
> 
> An armed society is a peaceful society
> 
> Not to mention, the police have no obligation whatsoever to come to your aid. You are on your own
> 
> -Geaux



*The answer is we need to sell and buy more guns*. 

these scopes are soon market ready but very spendy

12 Year Old Girl Hits 1000 Yards with TrackingPoint Smart Rifle

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfpZjTOyiFA]12 Year Old Girl Hits 1000 Yards with TrackingPoint Smart Rifle - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Geaux4it

jon_berzerk said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is we need to sell and buy more guns.
> 
> An armed society is a peaceful society
> 
> Not to mention, the police have no obligation whatsoever to come to your aid. You are on your own
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The answer is we need to sell and buy more guns*.
> 
> these scopes are soon market ready but very spendy
> 
> 12 Year Old Girl Hits 1000 Yards with TrackingPoint Smart Rifle
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfpZjTOyiFA]12 Year Old Girl Hits 1000 Yards with TrackingPoint Smart Rifle - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Ok- She can be on my team

-Geaux


----------



## Valox

How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people. 

Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?

When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.


----------



## Geaux4it

Valox said:


> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.



I'm all for the hood keeping their weapons to continue the cleansing of their own. Saves taxpayer dollars in keeping them out of prison.

A funeral is far cheaper than incarceration

-Geaux


----------



## Valox

Geaux4it said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for the hood keeping their weapons to continue the cleansing of their own. Saves taxpayer dollars in keeping them out of prison.
> 
> A funeral is far cheaper than incarceration
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


When was the last time you walked through one of those neighborhoods, handing out guns?


----------



## Geaux4it

Valox said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for the hood keeping their weapons to continue the cleansing of their own. Saves taxpayer dollars in keeping them out of prison.
> 
> A funeral is far cheaper than incarceration
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time you walked through one of those neighborhoods, handing out guns?
Click to expand...


There is no shortage in the neighborhood of guns. If someone there wants one, they can find it.

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Valox said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for the hood keeping their weapons to continue the cleansing of their own. Saves taxpayer dollars in keeping them out of prison.
> 
> A funeral is far cheaper than incarceration
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time you walked through one of those neighborhoods, handing out guns?
Click to expand...


Maybe he could fly his Confederate Flag while he's at it.


----------



## KissMy

Valox said:


> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.



Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.


----------



## Valox

KissMy said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
Click to expand...


So, the problem is that there aren't enough guns....


----------



## JoeB131

KissMy said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
Click to expand...


The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.  

So there's that.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
Click to expand...


Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk

Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. If you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Guy, the problem is, I am sitting no more than 100 feet from where one of you "repsonsible" gun owners blew his brains out two years ago. 

Before he did that, he shot a bullet out into the courtyard of our condo complex, where I or any one of our neighbors could have been crossing that day.  

You don't need a gun, and I'm tired of watching people being wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the problem is, I am sitting no more than 100 feet from where one of you "repsonsible" gun owners blew his brains out two years ago.
> 
> Before he did that, he shot a bullet out into the courtyard of our condo complex, where I or any one of our neighbors could have been crossing that day.
> 
> You don't need a gun, and I'm tired of watching people being wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.
Click to expand...


And I'm tired of others telling me what I need. 

MYOB

BTW- I assume you would also dislike watching people being wheeled out in body bags if they offed themselves with pills and razor blades

I have no issue with someone wanting to commit suicide. More power to them

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

Valox said:


> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.



if they are law abiding there is no reason not to have a gun


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> [
> 
> And I'm tired of others telling me what I need.
> 
> MYOB
> 
> BTW- I assume you would also dislike watching people being wheeled out in body bags if they offed themselves with pills and razor blades
> 
> I have no issue with someone wanting to commit suicide. More power to them
> 
> -Geaux



They can't accidently kill an neighbor with razorblades or pills.  

the "Test Run" with this guy happened a couple of weeks before he offed himself.  When the Cops arrived, he claimed that someone shot in at him, which was quickly disproved by the glass being OUTSIDE instead of inside. 

 Cops didn't take his gun, though.  That'd be a violation of his second amendment "rights".


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And I'm tired of others telling me what I need.
> 
> MYOB
> 
> BTW- I assume you would also dislike watching people being wheeled out in body bags if they offed themselves with pills and razor blades
> 
> I have no issue with someone wanting to commit suicide. More power to them
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't accidently kill an neighbor with razorblades or pills.
> 
> the "Test Run" with this guy happened a couple of weeks before he offed himself.  When the Cops arrived, he claimed that someone shot in at him, which was quickly disproved by the glass being OUTSIDE instead of inside.
> 
> Cops didn't take his gun, though.  That'd be a violation of his second amendment "rights".
Click to expand...


Good ting they didn't take them. Then he would of had to find another way to kill himself

Your risk of being accidently killed by a drunk driver is far more likely than death by a stray bullet

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

According to SAF, the British newspaper 'The Telegraph' recently completed a poll relative to 6 measures those polled would like to see introduced to the House of Commons.

http://www.saf.org/viewoe.asp?id=445

Of the six suggestions that included setting a flat tax and placing a term limit on the office of Prime Minister, what drew more than 86 percent of the reader support was a proposal to repeal the handgun ban of 1997. Because this is an unscientific poll, the results will be doomed to a media black hole, but it should send a clear signal to gun prohibitionists in the United States that their habitual use of the United Kingdom as an example of domestic tranquility where guns are concerned just took a direct hit in the credibility department.

At last check, more than 20,400 people had responded to the on-line poll. Support for ending the handgun ban was at 86.4 percent, leaving all other proposals in the political dust


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?



Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing

They were talking about you...


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you also forget WHY drugs were outlawed to start with.  Because before they were made illegal, everyone was doing them.   Doctors routinely recommended cocaine for children, there were a million opium addicts in a population of less than 100 Million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, all hail government, they will save us.  That sucks.  But compare it to present day where fighting the drugs gets us:
> 
> 1) Funding serious bad guys from the Taliban in Afghanistan to drug cartels in Columbia causing destabilization of those governments and their neighbors and leaving their people living in fear.
> 
> 2)  Funding organized crime in the United States.
> 
> 3)  Causing shootouts in the streets and terrorizing inner city neighborhoods into silence.
> 
> 4)  Allowing massive intrusions into our privacy by the government in the name of finding drug money.
> 
> 5)  Spending billions and billions we don't have year after year, as opposed to taxing drugs like any other product and bringing in revenue.
> 
> Thanks government for helping!  No problem is so big or so complicated that government can't make it worse.  And you want to double down and do the same for guns!  Good thinking.
> 
> This is the core of libertarianism, that is inherently so.  Sure, if government could do my charity for me and make good decisions that expanded my liberty and made my life easier, I'd love it too.  The only difference between liberals and me is that I recognize that never happens.  The Obamacare disaster where Obamacare ended up helping no one but government is what happens.  A libertarian is just a liberal or a conservative with their eyes open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?
> 
> I mean, even the really bad ideas like Theocracy, Fascism and Communism had a few countries willing to give it a go.
> 
> Is the War on Drugs executed badly?  Absolutely.  They are treating a medical problem like a criminal one.
> 
> Is legallizing drugs the answer?  Not unless you want your kid doing them the minute he's 18.
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause the legality of it is what keeps so many people from doing them......moron.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
Click to expand...


And how many times more likely are people who own cars likely to get an accident than people who don't?


----------



## Valox

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.
> 
> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing
> 
> They were talking about you...
Click to expand...


^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists. 

FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.


----------



## MisterBeale

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude- In this thread alone you have thrown out numbers, mostly non-factual-, that law abiding gun owners consider acceptable risk
> 
> Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm. I you are to unstable or have other issues, we support you not wanting to be one of the statistics you often cite.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the problem is, I am sitting no more than 100 feet from where one of you "repsonsible" gun owners blew his brains out two years ago.
> 
> Before he did that, he shot a bullet out into the courtyard of our condo complex, where I or any one of our neighbors could have been crossing that day.
> 
> You don't need a gun, and I'm tired of watching people being wheeled out in body bags because you have a fetish.
Click to expand...


Then turn you're pretty little head.  Don't look.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
Click to expand...


U.S. wars kill millions of people, yet we NEED them. Guns cause accidental death, and there is plenty of deaths from friendly fire in wars. Would JoeBlow argue that since guns are dangerous and should be done away with, therefore also ALL U.S. wars should no longer be fought, never?


----------



## kaz

Valox said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.
> 
> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing
> 
> They were talking about you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.
> 
> FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...


So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"

Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.

Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...


----------



## Valox

kaz said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the founding fathers did and it worked out pretty well until leftists playing on people's greed brought it crashing down with Trillion dollar deficits.
> 
> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing
> 
> They were talking about you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.
> 
> FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"
> 
> Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.
> 
> Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...
Click to expand...


Tell us how the majority is draining this country.  After all, that is they typical right wing/libertarian nonsense that you people regurgitate.


----------



## MisterBeale

JoeB131 said:


> I think the problem is, if Libertarianism is such a nifty idea, why hasn't any country ever tried it, not even once?



*The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer - Answered! *



> 0:00 - Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
> 
> 3:00 - It's not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations&#8212;195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
> 
> 7:39 - When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
> 
> But this isn't an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms&#8212;defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.
> 
> 10:39 - Some political philosophies pass this test. For much of the global center-left, the ideal for several generations has been Nordic social democracy&#8212;what the late liberal economist Robert Heilbroner described as "a slightly idealized Sweden." Other political philosophies pass the test, even if their exemplars flunk other tests. Until a few decades ago, supporters of communism in the West could point to the Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist dictatorships as examples of "really-existing socialism." They argued that, while communist regimes fell short in the areas of democracy and civil rights, they proved that socialism can succeed in a large-scale modern industrial society.
> 
> 13:30 - While the liberal welfare-state left, with its Scandinavian role models, remains a vital force in world politics, the pro-communist left has been discredited by the failure of the Marxist-Leninist countries it held up as imperfect but genuine models. Libertarians have often proclaimed that the economic failure of Marxism-Leninism discredits not only all forms of socialism but also moderate social-democratic liberalism.
> 
> 15:44 - But think about this for a moment. If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn't libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world? Communism was tried and failed. Libertarianism has never even been tried on the scale of a modern nation-state, even a small one, anywhere in the world.
> 
> 19:00 - Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to "economic freedom." Somewhat different lists are provided by the Fraser Institute in Canada and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
> 
> 22:32 - It's a seductive vision&#8212;enjoying the same quality of life that today's heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?



It's all here if you feel so inclined to be educated.  I doubt you really feel the need to throw off the blinders.  I am nearly certain you are an agitator of disinformation and misinformation because you rarely, if ever listen to anyone's reasoned discussion points.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcY7SVBG-4]The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer - Answered! - YouTube[/ame]

This is the article he is critiquing;
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/


----------



## kaz

Valox said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.
> 
> FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"
> 
> Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.
> 
> Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us how the majority is draining this country.  After all, that is they typical right wing/libertarian nonsense that you people regurgitate.
Click to expand...


Federal Spending as a percent of the GDP, deficits as a percent of GDP, national debt as a percent of GDP, 6 years of recession...

What are you trying to say exactly?  You're not really making any point.  You're good with how things are going?


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> [
> 
> U.S. wars kill millions of people, yet we NEED them. Guns cause accidental death, and there is plenty of deaths from friendly fire in wars. Would JoeBlow argue that since guns are dangerous and should be done away with, therefore also ALL U.S. wars should no longer be fought, never?



Actually, I think we haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII.  

Most wars are unnecessary.  

Has nothing to do with the fact that most civilians aren't trained and lack the judgment to own a gun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> U.S. wars kill millions of people, yet we NEED them. Guns cause accidental death, and there is plenty of deaths from friendly fire in wars. Would JoeBlow argue that since guns are dangerous and should be done away with, therefore also ALL U.S. wars should no longer be fought, never?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think we haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII.
> 
> Most wars are unnecessary.
> 
> Has nothing to do with the fact that most civilians aren't trained and lack the judgment to own a gun.
Click to expand...


the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.


----------



## Geaux4it

Valox said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^Another right winger completely bereft of facts and thinks that the middle class is killing democracy rather than lobbyists.
> 
> FFS, this site is stuck on stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in a post we're discussing that I'm a libertarian, you call me a "right winger" and you call anyone else "stuck on stupid?"
> 
> Then you pull a strawman point about the middle class and lobbyists out of your ass.
> 
> Other than that, I hear ya man, great point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us how the majority is draining this country.  After all, that is they typical right wing/libertarian nonsense that you people regurgitate.
Click to expand...


85 billion a month printing is a good start

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.



Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.

To show you how absurd that argument is.  

in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US. 

Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.  

Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.  

Wow.  

We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> U.S. wars kill millions of people, yet we NEED them. Guns cause accidental death, and there is plenty of deaths from friendly fire in wars. Would JoeBlow argue that since guns are dangerous and should be done away with, therefore also ALL U.S. wars should no longer be fought, never?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think we haven't fought a "necessary" war since WWII.
> 
> Most wars are unnecessary.
> 
> Has nothing to do with the fact that most civilians aren't trained and lack the judgment to own a gun.
Click to expand...


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
Click to expand...


Acceptable risk

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Not acceptable to me.  

The Ford Pinto was recalled after 27 deaths out of some 3 million sold.   

If the gun companies were held liable, you'd see a different tune.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not acceptable to me.
> 
> The Ford Pinto was recalled after 27 deaths out of some 3 million sold.
> 
> If the gun companies were held liable, you'd see a different tune.
Click to expand...


But the American people and the Senate disagree with you

Good luck with that

-Geaux


----------



## MisterBeale

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Agreed.  What ever it takes to defend the second Amendment.


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not acceptable to me.
> 
> The Ford Pinto was recalled after 27 deaths out of some 3 million sold.
> 
> If the gun companies were held liable, you'd see a different tune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the American people and the Senate disagree with you
> 
> Good luck with that
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


The Senate does. The American people don't.  90% want background checks to keep crazy fucks like you from getting guns.  Sorry. 

Not to worry, though.  The GOP is pretty much done as a party as old angry white people keep dying off.


----------



## JoeB131

MisterBeale said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  What ever it takes to defend the second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Did Jefferson say that after he was done raping his slave?


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not acceptable to me.
> 
> The Ford Pinto was recalled after 27 deaths out of some 3 million sold.
> 
> If the gun companies were held liable, you'd see a different tune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the American people and the Senate disagree with you
> 
> Good luck with that
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate does. The American people don't.  90% want background checks to keep crazy fucks like you from getting guns.  Sorry.
> .
Click to expand...


Let me know when that happens

Just added another one to the safe last week in your honor

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the American people and the Senate disagree with you
> 
> Good luck with that
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate does. The American people don't.  90% want background checks to keep crazy fucks like you from getting guns.  Sorry.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when that happens
> 
> Just added another one to the safe last week in your honor
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


It will be a pity when guns are restricted and you'll have to turn them all over to be melted down...


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate does. The American people don't.  90% want background checks to keep crazy fucks like you from getting guns.  Sorry.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when that happens
> 
> Just added another one to the safe last week in your honor
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be a pity when guns are restricted and you'll have to turn them all over to be melted down...
Click to expand...


Your dreams will not become law abiding American gun owners nightmare

Notta- Won't happen

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when that happens
> 
> Just added another one to the safe last week in your honor
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a pity when guns are restricted and you'll have to turn them all over to be melted down...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dreams will not become law abiding American gun owners nightmare
> 
> Notta- Won't happen
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Gonna happen a lot sooner than you think.  

Lots of Americans are just tired of watching small children being dragged out of schools in body bags because the gun industry is irresponsible about who they sell to.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be a pity when guns are restricted and you'll have to turn them all over to be melted down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dreams will not become law abiding American gun owners nightmare
> 
> Notta- Won't happen
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonna happen a lot sooner than you think.
> 
> Lots of Americans are just tired of watching small children being dragged out of schools in body bags because the gun industry is irresponsible about who they sell to.
Click to expand...


Lots? 

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your dreams will not become law abiding American gun owners nightmare
> 
> Notta- Won't happen
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna happen a lot sooner than you think.
> 
> Lots of Americans are just tired of watching small children being dragged out of schools in body bags because the gun industry is irresponsible about who they sell to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


actually a lot of folks has woken up to the fact that the liberal fantasy 

of *gun free zones being save* is neither gun free nor save


----------



## JoeB131

jon_berzerk said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna happen a lot sooner than you think.
> 
> Lots of Americans are just tired of watching small children being dragged out of schools in body bags because the gun industry is irresponsible about who they sell to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually a lot of folks has woken up to the fact that the liberal fantasy
> 
> of *gun free zones being save* is neither gun free nor save
Click to expand...


'save'?  Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?  

Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner. 

There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan

There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho. 

Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually a lot of folks has woken up to the fact that the liberal fantasy
> 
> of *gun free zones being save* is neither gun free nor save
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'save'?  Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?
> 
> Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner.
> 
> There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan
> 
> There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho.
> 
> Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.
Click to expand...


And the Tuscon shooter was stopped by a legal concealed carry citizen.

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

KarlaM said:


> Only sell guns to people with a minimum IQ of 100. That would be a good start.



Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms  

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

JoeB131 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually a lot of folks has woken up to the fact that the liberal fantasy
> 
> of *gun free zones being save* is neither gun free nor save
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'save'?  Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?
> 
> Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner.
> 
> There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan
> 
> There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho.
> 
> Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.
Click to expand...

*
There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan

There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho.* 

you are lying again 

*Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis*

which is a highly controlled gun free zone


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually a lot of folks has woken up to the fact that the liberal fantasy
> 
> of *gun free zones being save* is neither gun free nor save
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'save'?  Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?
> 
> Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner.
> 
> There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan
> 
> There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho.
> 
> Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Tuscon shooter was stopped by a legal concealed carry citizen.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


No, he wasn't.  He was mobbed by bystanders after he had to stop and reload.  

A legal owner DID almost shoot one of the bystanders by mistake, though.


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only sell guns to people with a minimum IQ of 100. That would be a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Was in the army for 11 years, and handled more firearms than you could even fantasize about....


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'save'?  Did you mean "safe", Cleetus?
> 
> Fact is, Tuscon happened in a Conceal Carry state, that didn't stop Loughner.
> 
> There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan
> 
> There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho.
> 
> Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Tuscon shooter was stopped by a legal concealed carry citizen.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he wasn't.  He was mobbed by bystanders after he had to stop and reload.
> 
> A legal owner DID almost shoot one of the bystanders by mistake, though.
Click to expand...


Wrong again Joe- I am using great restraint with you. Just my nature

Concealed Carry and the Tucson Massacre: Debunking a Few Myths

The armed citizen who entered the scene that day did not almost shoot the wrong guy. I encourage you to listen to him speak about the incident on the ProArms Podcast. Zamudio explains that he never removed his gun from his pocket. He came upon the scene when Loughner was on the ground struggling with a group of people, one of whom had been wounded. Zamudio saw an individual holding Loughners gun with the slide locked back. The individual was not facing Zamudio. He felt that the person was not a significant threat so he ordered them to put the gun on the ground which they immediately did. At no time did Zamudio deploy his firearm. After learning that the person he had encountered was not a danger, he helped to hold Loughner on the ground until the police arrived, some four minutes later.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KarlaM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only sell guns to people with a minimum IQ of 100. That would be a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was in the army for 11 years, and handled more firearms than you could even fantasize about....
Click to expand...


Wait- I thought you mentioned a while back that you were a 2nd Louie of the latrine detail. You sure it was not lime you handled instead of a weapon?

Just sayin

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously. 

How about a VALID mainstream news source? 

Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post



> TUCSON &#8212; Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.
> 
> He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"
> 
> Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.
> 
> Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.
> 
> As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man &#8212; it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.





> "They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains why Joe can't own firearms
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was in the army for 11 years, and handled more firearms than you could even fantasize about....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait- I thought you mentioned a while back that you were a 2nd Louie of the latrine detail. You sure it was not lime you handled instead of a weapon?
> 
> Just sayin
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Uh, no, I think you are delusional.  

I've been pretty clear on my service, and it's even in my profile.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.
> 
> How about a VALID mainstream news source?
> 
> Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TUCSON  Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.
> 
> He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"
> 
> Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.
> 
> Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.
> 
> As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man  it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I like this one better 

-Geaux

[youtube]Ldi1mgVgsAc[/youtube]


----------



## JoeB131

Sorry, not seeing it.  The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.  

His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner.  By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.  

More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy.  In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS.  Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, not seeing it.  The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.
> 
> His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner.  By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.
> 
> More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy.  In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS.  Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.



This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.

Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, not seeing it.  The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.
> 
> His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner.  By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.
> 
> More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy.  In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS.  Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.
> 
> Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...  

Anyone could have shown up.  One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, not seeing it.  The guy was a split second from shooting the wrong guy.
> 
> His having a gun that day did NOTHING to stop Loughner.  By the time he got there, Loughner was already on teh ground and his gun had been wrested away from him.
> 
> More to the point, Arizona is a concealed carry state. Yet not one person had the presense of mind to shoot the bad guy.  In fact, THAT NEVER HAPPENS.  Usually by the time "there's a shooting going on" registers, the bad guy has already killed everyone he was out to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.
> 
> Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...
> 
> Anyone could have shown up.  One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.
Click to expand...


I am responsible for protecting myself. If attacked, I would rather have gun for self defense than any other weapon.

If someone is breaking into my moms house, who is there to protect her?

A gun, that's who

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a democrat rally. Not surprising when considering the demographic present.
> 
> Who is going to protect us if we can't protect ourselves?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...
> 
> Anyone could have shown up.  One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am responsible for protecting myself. If attacked, I would rather have gun for self defense than any other weapon.
> 
> If someone is breaking into my moms house, who is there to protect her?
> 
> A gun, that's who
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


A gun that is 43 times more likely to kill someone in that house than a bad guy.  

Guns actually being used for self-defense are so rare to not even register.  They do provide an easy supply of guns for suicides, domestic violence and theft....

It's truly a case of the "Solution" being far worse than the "problem".


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a town hall in a public place...
> 
> Anyone could have shown up.  One of them just happened to be a crazy person who was able to buy a gun despite the fact everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am responsible for protecting myself. If attacked, I would rather have gun for self defense than any other weapon.
> 
> If someone is breaking into my moms house, who is there to protect her?
> 
> A gun, that's who
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun that is 43 times more likely to kill someone in that house than a bad guy.
> 
> Guns actually being used for self-defense are so rare to not even register.  They do provide an easy supply of guns for suicides, domestic violence and theft....
> 
> It's truly a case of the "Solution" being far worse than the "problem".
Click to expand...


I know how a parrot feels

Like I said, acceptable risk. The fact the police have no obligation to come to your aid solidifies that risk for me and many, many others

-Geaux


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JoeB131 said:


> When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.
> 
> How about a VALID mainstream news source?
> 
> Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TUCSON  Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.
> 
> He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"
> 
> Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.
> 
> Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.
> 
> As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man  it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ones concealed firearm is for personal protection only, in the event he is in personal, imminent danger; hes not a cop, its not his job to save others, one has no training in that regard whatsoever. Those who carry concealed firearms should understand that as well and act accordingly, whether his states law allows for that type of intervention or not.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
Click to expand...


We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.
Click to expand...


No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't. 

Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns.  If you guys say you can't  keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.


----------



## martybegan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your source is a site called, "Shooting for LIberty", you really can't be taken seriously.
> 
> How about a VALID mainstream news source?
> 
> Armed bystander's reaction in Ariz. shootings illustrates complexity of gun debate - The Denver Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TUCSON  Joe Zamudio was out buying cigarettes Jan. 8 when he heard what sounded like fireworks but he quickly realized were gunshots. He reached into his coat pocket for the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carried, clicking the safety off.
> 
> He heard yelling around him: "Shooter, shooter, get down!"
> 
> Zamudio saw a young man on the ground and an older man standing above him, waving a gun.
> 
> Zamudio, 24, had his finger on the trigger and seconds to decide. He lifted his finger from the trigger and ran toward the struggling men.
> 
> As he grabbed the older man's wrist to wrestle the gun away, bystanders yelled that he had the wrong man  it was the man on the ground who they said had attacked them and U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They always say, 'What if someone with a concealed weapon was there and could stop this?' " said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Washington-based Violence Policy Center. "Well there was, and he almost shot the wrong person."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ones concealed firearm is for personal protection only, in the event he is in personal, imminent danger; hes not a cop, *its not his job to save others*, one has no training in that regard whatsoever. Those who carry concealed firearms should understand that as well and act accordingly, whether his states law allows for that type of intervention or not.
Click to expand...


According to some court descions its not a Cop's Job to save you either.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
Click to expand...


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.
> 
> Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns.  If you guys say you can't  keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.
Click to expand...


Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns. 

If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.
> 
> Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns.  If you guys say you can't  keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.
Click to expand...


Hate to break it to you, if it can't work in California, it's absolutely doomed AGAIN on the National level

But don't let that get you down

-Geaux

Brown vetoes gun-control bills - latimes.com

SACRAMENTO &#8212; Declaring that California already has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday vetoed bills that would have further limited gun ownership and the sale of semiautomatic rifles.

The Democratic governor, a gun owner who hunted in his younger days, said the proposals went too far and would have infringed on the rights of hunters and marksmen without making Californians safer.

Many of the bills had been introduced after last December's shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed.

Among Brown's vetoes was a proposal that had been a top target for defeat by the National Rifle Assn. The measure would have banned the future manufacture, import and sale of semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. It would also have required those who already own such guns to register them.

"The state of California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style assault rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines," Brown wrote in his veto message.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also had the good sense not to ban airplanes as you're suggesting with guns. Again it is you has the argument that is stupid and lacks consistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but we made sure that those who shouldn't be on them weren't.
> 
> Something you gun nutters refuse to do, so you might as well take all the guns.  If you guys say you can't  keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.
Click to expand...


I , for one, am not saying that. I don't see many others on here saying that either.


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You mean it won, but because the Senate has goofy rules requiring supermajorities, the NRA was able to bully cowards into letting children be murdered. 

Good job, everyone.  Good job.


----------



## JoeB131

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?



1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks. 
2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.  

Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
Click to expand...


No they haven't all have murders and crimes committed with firearms.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No they haven't all have murders and crimes committed with firearms.
Click to expand...


NO, actually, they really have... as few crimes ARE committed with firearms in those countries.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
> 
> To show you how absurd that argument is.
> 
> in 2001, there were 65,000 airline flights in the US.
> 
> Only 4 of those were flown into buildings by terrorists.
> 
> Still, we had the good sense to put steel doors on cockpits, hire professional security people instead of the minimum wage rent-a-cops the airports were using, develop improved screening procedures for boarding airplanes, and actively track those who go to flight schools.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> We have 10 9/11's every year from gun violence.  You'd think tighter security would be in order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean it won, but because the Senate has goofy rules requiring supermajorities, the NRA was able to bully cowards into letting children be murdered.
> 
> Good job, everyone.  Good job.
Click to expand...


Please.... Not for the children mantra... You have to admit, that's pretty played out already

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
Click to expand...


Basically your plan is to endlessly commit the logical fallacy of begging the question while sounding more snide and condescending than anyone else while doing it.  Thereby winning in your own mind.

Three puts the gun manufacturers out of business so you can play the game you didn't make them "illegal" you just ended anyone's ability to manufacture them.  With 1 and 2 you are following the same strategy as the war on drugs, which doesn't work, but according to you will work for guns when it doesn't work with drugs.  Which is the question in the op you keep ignoring that the thread is based on.

But you do through out the word, "France."  As if that's supposed to mean anything.

This is simple, even to an arrogant dumb ass like you.  Drug dealers are already freely importing drugs with only occasional arrests, which is just the cost of doing business.  Not only could gun dealers do the same thing, but drug dealers could do it themselves.

As the cost of guns goes up, they bring them into the country (assuming you are effective eliminating the domestic guns).  Then criminals buy them.  "France" is not an answer to why that would work.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> You mean it won, but because the Senate has goofy rules requiring supermajorities, the NRA was able to bully cowards into letting children be murdered.
> 
> Good job, everyone.  Good job.



Yes, their parents were unable to protect them.  Well done on that.  They were slaughtered for your idiotology.  You can put that in your e-mail sig, any number of deaths are worth the arrogant, smug grin on your face.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> There were armed guards at Columbine.  That didn't stop Kleibold and Dylan
> 
> There was a police force at VA Tech.  That didn't stop Cho.
> 
> Ft. Hood and the Washington Navy Yard were fucking MILITARY BASES!  That didn't stop Hasan or Alexis.



They knew who had guns and where they were, and they went somewhere else to slaughter people.  Again, good job on that, making sure carnage was maximized. Hey, people dies, but you feel smug and superior, totally worth it...


----------



## Steven_R

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
Click to expand...


Let's say you get your way and gun ownership is outlawed. I'm not giving up my guns. Are you personally going to kick in my door to get them or are you just going to let other people's sons and husbands take the risk to satisfy your moral indignation? How many dead cops is it worth to disarm me and people like me?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come gun nuts believe in arming teachers, but not ghetto people.
> 
> Should your logic work both way?  More guns that ghetto people have, the less crime?
> 
> When was the last time the NRA conducted a bake sale in gun violent neighborhoods?  But is it is cool that the NRA wants to arm 3rd grade math teachers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are banned in violent ghetto neighborhoods. Then the police use stop & frisk to charge all good people carrying a gun as a criminal. Thus creating more criminals. Without good people with guns to stop the criminals, they begin to rule the streets causing social problems. Social problems breed crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is, Good people with guns are 43 times more likely to shoot themselves, their friends, their family members than they ever are to shoot a bad guy.
> 
> So there's that.
Click to expand...


There are liars, dirty liars and statisticians.

Right, if there were no guns, the suicides and domestic murders you are counting would not have happened, you'd have saves all those lives.

When I was in my 20s I remember hearing stats like this, and it made me wonder.  Until I saw the reverse stats of how many crimes are averted with no shots fired, which completely flipped the equation.

The bottom line is that once again, liberalism is about removing choice.  If I get my way, you can still make your own choice, if you get your way, mine is removed.  Then you look at government's role in crime.  They do not prevent crime, they are there to draw a line around you or your dead relatives, conduct some interviews and if you're really lucky they will figure out who did it and put them away for probably at the most a decade or two.

Government does not protect us, and you are making sure we cannot protect ourselves.  Then you talk about how we're responsible for the crimes committed with guns, which you have no actual plan to get rid of other than the policies that don't work on drugs and endlessly repeating the word "France."

I see why you're so smug.  Not.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> the facts do not support your opinion.300 MILLION firearms in the hands of civilians and a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent use them illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is still 30,000 deaths and 79,000 injuries too many.
Click to expand...


Again, begging the question.  You assume the truth of your position that if we do what doesn't work with drugs with guns then we can assume that it will work.  Which makes us responsible for those deaths.  The question is how do we address the issue.  We are saying you are wrong, not that we don't care.  In fact it's you who doesn't care because your solution has been proven to not work.  And your only explanation is the word, "France."


----------



## kaz

Steven_R said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and gun ownership is outlawed. I'm not giving up my guns. Are you personally going to kick in my door to get them or are you just going to let other people's sons and husbands take the risk to satisfy your moral indignation? How many dead cops is it worth to disarm me and people like me?
Click to expand...


He's going to look down his nose at you and think in his mind how superior he is.  Though in fairness he's going to do that no matter what you do or don't do...


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well? lol The flight cabin is a controlled environment, and with proper care, not a difficult task to keep free of terrorists. The environment where guns may appear is boundless, exactly like your inane arguments in favor of banning guns.
> 
> If by some "leap year" miracle, you could pull something out of your ass and devise an identical method, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that's used to keep commercial flights safe, what would that be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
Click to expand...


Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? You really are out to lunch. 

And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Private ownership of guns is banned without very hard to get licenses and thorough background checks.
> 2) People caught retaining guns will be fined or imprisoned.
> 3) Gun companies can be held financially liable for deaths caused by guns.
> 
> Guy, this isn't complicated.  Germany, Japan, France, the UK, Canada, have ALL FIGURED THIS OUT!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they haven't all have murders and crimes committed with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, actually, they really have... as few crimes ARE committed with firearms in those countries.
Click to expand...


And very few are commited in this country also. How much of a derp da derp are you that you can't figure this out? A country that doesn't allow posession of firearms AT ALL. Still has people killing other people with firearms. Your goal remains inconsistant and immoral. You will gladly remove the things that are involved in death that won't pose an inconvience to you. But you are completely against getting rid of things like automobiles that would be inconvenient for you to do without.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> Basically your plan is to endlessly commit the logical fallacy of begging the question while sounding more snide and condescending than anyone else while doing it.  Thereby winning in your own mind.
> 
> Three puts the gun manufacturers out of business so you can play the game you didn't make them "illegal" you just ended anyone's ability to manufacture them.  With 1 and 2 you are following the same strategy as the war on drugs, which doesn't work, but according to you will work for guns when it doesn't work with drugs.  Which is the question in the op you keep ignoring that the thread is based on.



Guns are a lot harder to manufacture than drugs...  and again, everyone else has alrady figured this out...  

America is like the Class Retard who keeps writing "2+2=Cat" when everyone else got "4" and are laughing at him.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. *In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? *You really are out to lunch.
> 
> And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.



If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.  

If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.  

Case in point.  Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.  

You know who is oppossing it?  The NRA.


----------



## Geaux4it

Folks are right. It's about the children and their rights

-Geaux


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. *In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? *You really are out to lunch.
> 
> And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.
> 
> If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.
> 
> Case in point.  Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.
> 
> You know who is oppossing it?  The NRA.
Click to expand...


So what? Do you agree with minimum sentences on all things or just your pet peeves? How about zero tolerance on all things not just your pet peeves? Some people believe minimum sentences are for the lazy and the cowardly. How about they pass a law provide sentence guidelines and leave it to the judge to decide?


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> So what? Do you agree with minimum sentences on all things or just your pet peeves? How about zero tolerance on all things not just your pet peeves? Some people believe minimum sentences are for the lazy and the cowardly. How about they pass a law provide sentence guidelines and leave it to the judge to decide?



No, actually, I really think if you commit a crime with a gun, you need to go to jail for a long time and never get a gun again.  

Things the NRA is perfectly fine with.  

And why shouldn't they be.  Not only do crooks buy guns, usually without much a legal hassle, but they keep people like you so scared you want them, too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what? Do you agree with minimum sentences on all things or just your pet peeves? How about zero tolerance on all things not just your pet peeves? Some people believe minimum sentences are for the lazy and the cowardly. How about they pass a law provide sentence guidelines and leave it to the judge to decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I really think if you commit a crime with a gun, you need to go to jail for a long time and never get a gun again.
> 
> Things the NRA is perfectly fine with.
> 
> And why shouldn't they be.  Not only do crooks buy guns, usually without much a legal hassle, but they keep people like you so scared you want them, too.
Click to expand...


There you go projecting again. I am not afraid of crooks at all. Hell I don't even lock my door at night. My weapons are for a need that may never occur. A break down of society. Part of that "delusional paranoia" of mine.

Me and my weapons are no threat to anyone unless of course society stops working and there is no Government to do  anything about it. And that is a pretty specific thing and not easily mistaken either.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> There you go projecting again. I am not afraid of crooks at all. Hell I don't even lock my door at night. My weapons are for a need that may never occur. A break down of society. Part of that "delusional paranoia" of mine.
> 
> Me and my weapons are no threat to anyone unless of course society stops working and there is no Government to do  anything about it. And that is a pretty specific thing and not easily mistaken either.



Yeah, guy, I don't want to think that the only thing separating the rest of us from your anti-"Zombie" rampage is a few pills.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> So what? Do you agree with minimum sentences on all things or just your pet peeves? How about zero tolerance on all things not just your pet peeves? Some people believe minimum sentences are for the lazy and the cowardly. How about they pass a law provide sentence guidelines and leave it to the judge to decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I really think if you commit a crime with a gun, you need to go to jail for a long time and never get a gun again.
> 
> Things the NRA is perfectly fine with.
> 
> And why shouldn't they be.  Not only do crooks buy guns, usually without much a legal hassle, but they keep people like you so scared you want them, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again. I am not afraid of crooks at all. Hell I don't even lock my door at night. My weapons are for a need that may never occur. A break down of society. Part of that "delusional paranoia" of mine.
> 
> Me and my weapons are no threat to anyone *unless of course society stops working and there is no Government to do  anything about it*. And that is a pretty specific thing and not easily mistaken either.
Click to expand...


Obviously youre unaware of how ridiculous this sounds. 

Society isnt going to stop working; and even if it did your guns will be of little use. To think otherwise is delusional. 

If you were smart youd just say you own guns because you like them and fell like it and leave it at that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I really think if you commit a crime with a gun, you need to go to jail for a long time and never get a gun again.
> 
> Things the NRA is perfectly fine with.
> 
> And why shouldn't they be.  Not only do crooks buy guns, usually without much a legal hassle, but they keep people like you so scared you want them, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again. I am not afraid of crooks at all. Hell I don't even lock my door at night. My weapons are for a need that may never occur. A break down of society. Part of that "delusional paranoia" of mine.
> 
> Me and my weapons are no threat to anyone *unless of course society stops working and there is no Government to do  anything about it*. And that is a pretty specific thing and not easily mistaken either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously youre unaware of how ridiculous this sounds.
> 
> Society isnt going to stop working; and even if it did your guns will be of little use. To think otherwise is delusional.
> 
> If you were smart youd just say you own guns because you like them and fell like it and leave it at that.
Click to expand...


Being prepared to help as I can if it happens is not ridiculous. And I guess you missed the part where I am told it is delusional paranoia? Strongly held belief. Your claiming it is stupid does not phase me, I have doctors to do that.


----------



## Geaux4it

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, I really think if you commit a crime with a gun, you need to go to jail for a long time and never get a gun again.
> 
> Things the NRA is perfectly fine with.
> 
> And why shouldn't they be.  Not only do crooks buy guns, usually without much a legal hassle, but they keep people like you so scared you want them, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again. I am not afraid of crooks at all. Hell I don't even lock my door at night. My weapons are for a need that may never occur. A break down of society. Part of that "delusional paranoia" of mine.
> 
> Me and my weapons are no threat to anyone *unless of course society stops working and there is no Government to do  anything about it*. And that is a pretty specific thing and not easily mistaken either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you&#8217;re unaware of how ridiculous this sounds.
> 
> Society isn&#8217;t going to &#8216;stop working&#8217;; and even if it did your guns will be of little use. To think otherwise is delusional.
> 
> If you were smart you&#8217;d just say you own guns because you like them and fell like it and leave it at that.
Click to expand...


I like how some speak with certainty about something they have no idea will, or will not happen. Just like those who spout off they are so certain there is no God, only to cry like babies an accept Jesus Christ in the 11th hour. Not so presumptuous anymore.

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> [
> 
> I like how some speak with certainty about something they have no idea will, or will not happen. Just like those who spout off they are so certain there is no God, only to cry like babies an accept Jesus Christ in the 11th hour. Not so presumptuous anymore.
> 
> -Geaux



Except no one actually does that.  

If society would fall apart, the very criminal types you fear would be the ones in charge after a certain point.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I like how some speak with certainty about something they have no idea will, or will not happen. Just like those who spout off they are so certain there is no God, only to cry like babies an accept Jesus Christ in the 11th hour. Not so presumptuous anymore.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one actually does that.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot

RetiredGySgt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go projecting again. I am not afraid of crooks at all. Hell I don't even lock my door at night. My weapons are for a need that may never occur. A break down of society. Part of that "delusional paranoia" of mine.
> 
> Me and my weapons are no threat to anyone *unless of course society stops working and there is no Government to do  anything about it*. And that is a pretty specific thing and not easily mistaken either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously youre unaware of how ridiculous this sounds.
> 
> Society isnt going to stop working; and even if it did your guns will be of little use. To think otherwise is delusional.
> 
> If you were smart youd just say you own guns because you like them and fell like it and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being prepared to help as I can if it happens is not ridiculous. And I guess you missed the part where I am told it is delusional paranoia? Strongly held belief. Your claiming it is stupid does not phase me, I have doctors to do that.
Click to expand...


You have to remember RGS - people like [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] can't grasp the concept of preparation. He's been a ward of the state since he became an adult. He's a parasite who mooches off of others. He's never been required to prepare for a meeting at work, much less prepare for life.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Society isnt going to stop working;



If ever there were a statement that proved this extraordinary ignorance of the Dumbocrats, this one right here is it... It is truly amazing - these people *never* learn from history.  

Greece:
















No breakdown of society here, right [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]?


----------



## JoeB131

Rottweiler said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously youre unaware of how ridiculous this sounds.
> 
> Society isnt going to stop working; and even if it did your guns will be of little use. To think otherwise is delusional.
> 
> If you were smart youd just say you own guns because you like them and fell like it and leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being prepared to help as I can if it happens is not ridiculous. And I guess you missed the part where I am told it is delusional paranoia? Strongly held belief. Your claiming it is stupid does not phase me, I have doctors to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember RGS - people like [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] can't grasp the concept of preparation. He's been a ward of the state since he became an adult. He's a parasite who mooches off of others. He's never been required to prepare for a meeting at work, much less prepare for life.
Click to expand...


No, people who prepare for meetings are normal.

People who prepare for the Zombie Apocolypse are nuts. 

Sorry you can't see the difference.  

Just remember, Nancy Lanza was a "Prepper".   How'd that work out again?


----------



## JoeB131

Oh, noes, Poodle is posting Anarchy Porn.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I like how some speak with certainty about something they have no idea will, or will not happen. Just like those who spout off they are so certain there is no God, only to cry like babies an accept Jesus Christ in the 11th hour. Not so presumptuous anymore.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one actually does that.
> 
> If society would fall apart, the very criminal types you fear would be the ones in charge after a certain point.
Click to expand...


In your "world" that would defintely happen, because they would be the only non governmental actors armed at the start of things.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Obviously youre unaware of how ridiculous this sounds.
> 
> Society isnt going to stop working; and ..... To think otherwise is delusional.



Oh the irony of these two sentences together in the same post [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]...


----------



## Wildman

*



			...you guys say you can't keep guns out of the hands of crooks and crazys, then no one should have them.
		
Click to expand...

*
one of the most retarded statements ever made in this thread. 

if only one liberal here had the brain power of a jelly fish you could be king of the world 

on any given day a person who has never been in any trouble in their life can crack and use the most available "weapon" to cause death and mayhem.., and that would be a car, next would be a knife then clubs, a gun is most likely to be secured so going after one would cause some to think about what they are about to do.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Basically your plan is to endlessly commit the logical fallacy of begging the question while sounding more snide and condescending than anyone else while doing it.  Thereby winning in your own mind.
> 
> Three puts the gun manufacturers out of business so you can play the game you didn't make them "illegal" you just ended anyone's ability to manufacture them.  With 1 and 2 you are following the same strategy as the war on drugs, which doesn't work, but according to you will work for guns when it doesn't work with drugs.  Which is the question in the op you keep ignoring that the thread is based on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a lot harder to manufacture than drugs...  and again, everyone else has alrady figured this out...
Click to expand...


Depends on the drug and the gun, but what is the relevance of this statement since there are endless supplies of both inside and outside the US already?  What difference does it make which of two easy things to produce is "harder?"



JoeB131 said:


> America is like the Class Retard who keeps writing "2+2=Cat" when everyone else got "4" and are laughing at him.



Unlike you, I actually know international people, I don't learn about the world from the liberal media and my white, liberal neighbors like you do.  The only ones "laughing" at us are the international left, and they are no different than the American left, they already hate us, so guns are still irrelevant, it's that or something else.

It is true though that when I worked in Europe the two big topics they asked me about in the US are the death penalty and guns.   So you're partially right.  Here are my conclusions on that.  There are three big reasons gun laws have worked better there.  Diversity, geography and culture.

Diversity - Europeans were historically far more monolithic with similar people in similar towns with similar attitudes while we are a hodge podge and have been since the beginning.

Geography - The US is larger and more remote making our borders harder to secure and we're closer to places like Mexico.  And your side make sure that border stays open, then you think illegal things wont' cross it, talk about 2+2=Cat...

Culture - Americans are used to guns, they are around, Europeans are not.

They thought those made a lot of sense, it wasn't just an American saying that.  Furthermore, as Europe has diversified ... gun violence is escalating dramatically, demonstrating this.

I realize while being arrogant you are intellectually lazy, which is why I stopped waiting for you to support your own argument and took it apart anyway.

Your argument still boils down to that if we put gun manufacturers out of business by giving them liability faced by no other manufacturer instead of just outlawing them, THEN do what we do with drugs it will work.  And your argument is "France."  You don't know why, but it works in France, so it'll work here.  Even though it doesn't work for drugs.  And it's not working so well in France anymore.


----------



## TemplarKormac

So Joe is still going on even after I trashed his hard on for the Kellermann study? Wow, talk about a glutton for punishment.


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Basically your plan is to endlessly commit the logical fallacy of begging the question while sounding more snide and condescending than anyone else while doing it.  Thereby winning in your own mind.
> 
> Three puts the gun manufacturers out of business so you can play the game you didn't make them "illegal" you just ended anyone's ability to manufacture them.  With 1 and 2 you are following the same strategy as the war on drugs, which doesn't work, but according to you will work for guns when it doesn't work with drugs.  Which is the question in the op you keep ignoring that the thread is based on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are a lot harder to manufacture than drugs...  and again, everyone else has alrady figured this out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on the drug and the gun, but what is the relevance of this statement since there are endless supplies of both inside and outside the US already?  What difference does it make which of two easy things to produce is "harder?"
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is like the Class Retard who keeps writing "2+2=Cat" when everyone else got "4" and are laughing at him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I actually know international people, I don't learn about the world from the liberal media and my white, liberal neighbors like you do.  The only ones "laughing" at us are the international left, and they are no different than the American left, they already hate us, so guns are still irrelevant, it's that or something else.
> 
> It is true though that when I worked in Europe the two big topics they asked me about in the US are the death penalty and guns.   So you're partially right.  Here are my conclusions on that.  There are three big reasons gun laws have worked better there.  Diversity, geography and culture.
> 
> Diversity - Europeans were historically far more monolithic with similar people in similar towns with similar attitudes while we are a hodge podge and have been since the beginning.
> 
> Geography - The US is larger and more remote making our borders harder to secure and we're closer to places like Mexico.  And your side make sure that border stays open, then you think illegal things wont' cross it, talk about 2+2=Cat...
> 
> Culture - Americans are used to guns, they are around, Europeans are not.
> 
> They thought those made a lot of sense, it wasn't just an American saying that.  Furthermore, as Europe has diversified ... gun violence is escalating dramatically, demonstrating this.
> 
> I realize while being arrogant you are intellectually lazy, which is why I stopped waiting for you to support your own argument and took it apart anyway.
> 
> Your argument still boils down to that if we put gun manufacturers out of business by giving them liability faced by no other manufacturer instead of just outlawing them, THEN do what we do with drugs it will work.  And your argument is "France."  You don't know why, but it works in France, so it'll work here.  Even though it doesn't work for drugs.  And it's not working so well in France anymore.
Click to expand...




Just so you know Katz - dumb ass here started another gun thread with "I don't care about guns" but then jumped back in to wail incoherently about the "evils" of guns. In other words, he's a troll looking to get a reaction out of you...


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> Just so you know Katz - dumb ass here started another gun thread with "I don't care about guns" but then jumped back in to wail incoherently about the "evils" of guns. In other words, he's a troll looking to get a reaction out of you...



I appreciate the heads up.  Not that I do it perfectly, but I try to write even when I'm responding directly to liberals I'm really writing for non-liberals.  Liberals are hopeless.  If they weren't, the overwhelming contradiction of logic, reason  and results of liberalism would have convinced them that their ideology is garbage.  Yet they believe it unquestioningly.  Again you have to not question it since questions make it fall apart.

There are also active and informed people like you and Templar who already know what's going on and what's wrong with what they are saying.  However, there are a lot of others in the middle who realize something is wrong with liberalism, but they have a hard time articulating it exactly.

Again while I don't always succeed, in my mind I am trying to address them first.  Then connect with people such as yourself second.  Clearly gun laws don't work, and what I said in my view summarized why they don't work.

Though that gun laws "don't work" isn't my own primary reason guns should be legal.  It's that government will not, can not and should not be in a position of protecting me in advance of crimes.  That's my job.  Government should just not be stopping me from doing it myself.   Self victimization may be the liberal way, but it is not mine.

A woman nearby my office a few weeks ago was murdered by her ex in a murder suicide.  She had phoned the police beforehand and asked for a restraining order.  It was denied, no evidence.  There is now.  Doesn't help her.  Not that the restraining order would have either...


----------



## Immanuel

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I like how some speak with certainty about something they have no idea will, or will not happen. Just like those who spout off they are so certain there is no God, only to cry like babies an accept Jesus Christ in the 11th hour. Not so presumptuous anymore.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except no one actually does that.
> 
> If society would fall apart, the very criminal types you fear would be the ones in charge after a certain point.
Click to expand...


They already are.  They are liberals like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

Immie


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being prepared to help as I can if it happens is not ridiculous. And I guess you missed the part where I am told it is delusional paranoia? Strongly held belief. Your claiming it is stupid does not phase me, I have doctors to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember RGS - people like [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] can't grasp the concept of preparation. He's been a ward of the state since he became an adult. He's a parasite who mooches off of others. He's never been required to prepare for a meeting at work, much less prepare for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, people who prepare for meetings are normal.
> 
> People who prepare for the Zombie Apocolypse are nuts.
> 
> Sorry you can't see the difference.
> 
> Just remember, Nancy Lanza was a "Prepper".   How'd that work out again?
Click to expand...


Sounds like you got a little sand in the vagina. Have you been to the beach? Don't worry.  Zombies (even zombies with guns ie. *Land of the Dead*) won't eat you. They can smell chickenshit a mile away.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. *In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? *You really are out to lunch.
> 
> And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.
> 
> If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.
> 
> Case in point.  Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.
> 
> You know who is oppossing it?  The NRA.
Click to expand...


The only way that flies is if the truth is gun manufacturer's are marketing to people they know are likely to commit crimes with them. You haven't been able to show that. Again, the one time you attempted to do so was a lie. The two are equivlalent already making you hypocrite. You won't hold car manufacturers to the same standard you hold gun manufacturers.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. *In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? *You really are out to lunch.
> 
> And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.
> 
> If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.
> 
> Case in point.  Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.
> 
> You know who is oppossing it?  The NRA.
Click to expand...


Care to provide a link for that? Is that the only part of the law, or is it part of an overall gun control law?

And would that mean someone who improperly stores thier gun is thus committing a crime, is thus a felon, and is thus banned from owning a gun ever again?  Or is it a seperate crime that is comitted while having a gun?


----------



## Geaux4it

How ironic on a day when Obama Unconstitutionally stole the power of the House, I elected to add to my firearm collection with a S&W 686 Plus

One can never have to many, because we may need mine someday

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> So Joe is still going on even after I trashed his hard on for the Kellermann study? Wow, talk about a glutton for punishment.



You mean when you proved you really didn't understand what the Kellerman Study was about. 

I've explained it to you several time, BiPolar boy.    I'm not sure what else I can do for you.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> The only way that flies is if the truth is gun manufacturer's are marketing to people they know are likely to commit crimes with them. You haven't been able to show that. Again, the one time you attempted to do so was a lie. The two are equivlalent already making you hypocrite. You won't hold car manufacturers to the same standard you hold gun manufacturers.



Besides their oppossition to any kind of background check and oppossition to minimum sentences for people who commit crimes with guns?  

Gun makers, help keep weapons out of criminals' hands - CNN.com

What the Gun Industry and the NRA Don?t Want You To Know


----------



## Bern80

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Again your soluition is completely illogical and inconsistant. Especially number 3. In no other circumstance do we do that. *In our community just this past week a drunk drive killed four. Himself and the people in the car he hit. You are suggesting the manufacturer of the car he was driving bares some responsibility in that? *You really are out to lunch.
> 
> And no, those countries didn't 'figure anything out'. They were stupid like you are. They tried to keep people who break laws from breaking the law by creating more laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the car companies acted like the gun companies, you'd probably have a pretty good case againt them.
> 
> If you want to be equivlent, the Car companies would have to specifically market to drunks, fight to keep the definition of DUI so high you'd have to be drinking anti-freeze to qualify, and fight against sentences for drunk drivers.
> 
> Case in point.  Today they suggested a minimum 3-year sentence in Illinois for anyone who commits a crime with a gun.
> 
> You know who is oppossing it?  The NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to provide a link for that? Is that the only part of the law, or is it part of an overall gun control law?
> 
> And would that mean someone who improperly stores thier gun is thus committing a crime, is thus a felon, and is thus banned from owning a gun ever again?  Or is it a seperate crime that is comitted while having a gun?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't ask him about potential laws. He doensn't really care about the law. The only law he's interested in is the one that bans all guns outright. Discussing any measure short of that with him is pointless. He's trying to argue that because must people know the truth when they hear it, regardless of whether they admit it. And he knows the truth of his position faulty logistically and pragmatically.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> [
> 
> I wouldn't ask him about potential laws. He doensn't really care about the law. The only law he's interested in is the one that bans all guns outright. Discussing any measure short of that with him is pointless. He's trying to argue that because must people know the truth when they hear it, regardless of whether they admit it. And he knows the truth of his position faulty logistically and pragmatically.



Pragmatically, every other industrialized democracy either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership. 

They are just as free as we aer, they have less crime, and they get by just fine. 

What they don't have are gun manufacturers who keep pouring gasoline on the fire because they are selling the gasoliine.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The only way that flies is if the truth is gun manufacturer's are marketing to people they know are likely to commit crimes with them. You haven't been able to show that. Again, the one time you attempted to do so was a lie. The two are equivlalent already making you hypocrite. You won't hold car manufacturers to the same standard you hold gun manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides their oppossition to any kind of background check and oppossition to minimum sentences for people who commit crimes with guns?
> 
> Gun makers, help keep weapons out of criminals' hands - CNN.com
> 
> What the Gun Industry and the NRA Don?t Want You To Know
Click to expand...


Much like you, your sources provide no evidence. His analogies are as bad as yours too seeing as how they don't hold. He equates malfunctioning tires to gun related violence, but the issue is not about malfunctioning guns. 

He's concerned about information about gun violence. Why? You think if either of you can come up with a big enough number that somehow proves guns are too dangerous for people to have? That doesn't change the fact that argument is inconsistent. You can't claim you're concerned about the number of deaths an inanimate object is involved and give some of them a pass essentially saying the number of deaths are okay for one object, but not another.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I wouldn't ask him about potential laws. He doensn't really care about the law. The only law he's interested in is the one that bans all guns outright. Discussing any measure short of that with him is pointless. He's trying to argue that because must people know the truth when they hear it, regardless of whether they admit it. And he knows the truth of his position faulty logistically and pragmatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatically, every other industrialized democracy either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> They are just as free as we aer, they have less crime, and they get by just fine.
> 
> What they don't have are gun manufacturers who keep pouring gasoline on the fire because they are selling the gasoliine.
Click to expand...


We don't either. That is all in your delusioned head. And since those other countries are deprived of a choice that we have they are by definition less free. You keep spouting about other countries banning guns. The mere fact that they undertake some policy does not in of itself make it good or moral policy. The fact that 'other countries do it' is a truly meaningless argument.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I wouldn't ask him about potential laws. He doensn't really care about the law. The only law he's interested in is the one that bans all guns outright. Discussing any measure short of that with him is pointless. He's trying to argue that because must people know the truth when they hear it, regardless of whether they admit it. And he knows the truth of his position faulty logistically and pragmatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatically, every other industrialized democracy either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> They are just as free as we aer, they have less crime, and they get by just fine.
> 
> What they don't have are gun manufacturers who keep pouring gasoline on the fire because they are selling the gasoliine.
Click to expand...


Actually you are lying the Countries you keep citing for the most part do NOT have less violence, just less violence with firearms. Britain and Japan I believe have more violence and Japan has more suicides. Not sure on Germany but they have a violence problem as well as does France.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By population and crime stats.

Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.

France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.

Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.

Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Did the math to one point.

USA Violante percentage of population.....  .03 percent.

Germany Violence percentage of population....  .05 percent.

France Violence percentage of population......  .05 percent.

Britain Violence percentage per population.....  .1 percent

Canada Violence per population.........    .07 percent.

Now remind me how we are more violent then these Countries?


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I wouldn't ask him about potential laws. He doensn't really care about the law. The only law he's interested in is the one that bans all guns outright. Discussing any measure short of that with him is pointless. He's trying to argue that because must people know the truth when they hear it, regardless of whether they admit it. And he knows the truth of his position faulty logistically and pragmatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatically, every other industrialized democracy either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> They are just as free as we aer, they have less crime, and they get by just fine.
> 
> What they don't have are gun manufacturers who keep pouring gasoline on the fire because they are selling the gasoliine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't either. That is all in your delusioned head. And since those other countries are deprived of a choice that we have they are by definition less free. You keep spouting about other countries banning guns. The mere fact that they undertake some policy does not in of itself make it good or moral policy. The fact that 'other countries do it' is a truly meaningless argument.
Click to expand...


Actually, we do.  







It makes excellent moral policy.  They've made a calculation that the benefits of arming citizens (there really aren't any) is outweighed by the lives saved in reductions in crime, murder, suicides and accidents.  

And trust me, the minute we start holding the gun companies financially liable, will be the minute they won't be so keen on selling guns to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.



These are horseshit figures.   

The US figures only include about four crimes, while those other countries count ALL violent crimes.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are horseshit figures.
> 
> The US figures only include about four crimes, while those other countries count ALL violent crimes.
Click to expand...


and some other countries only count murders when a CONVICTION occurs, we count them from police records. I have a feeling the other crimes also only count on CONVICTION.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> and some other countries only count murders when a CONVICTION occurs, we count them from police records. I have a feeling the other crimes also only count on CONVICTION.



So, um, yeah. 

The UK only had 48 gun murders, and we had 11,101.  

So either British Prosecutors are like something out of a Monty Python Sketch....






Or we really, really have a lot of people being killed with guns... 

I'm going with the latter.


----------



## Geaux4it

IMO- Everyone should be buying more guns and hording ammunition.

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> and some other countries only count murders when a CONVICTION occurs, we count them from police records. I have a feeling the other crimes also only count on CONVICTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, um, yeah.
> 
> The UK only had 48 gun murders, and we had 11,101.
> 
> So either British Prosecutors are like something out of a Monty Python Sketch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we really, really have a lot of people being killed with guns...
> 
> I'm going with the latter.
Click to expand...


Daily Telegraph Poll: 86% Want To Repeal UK Handgun Ban | Weasel Zippers

An overwhelming majority of British citizens want their country&#8217;s handgun ban repealed, according to the results of an on-line poll conducted by the Daily Telegraph, described Wednesday as the United Kingdom&#8217;s &#8220;most widely read broadsheet newspaper&#8221; by the Commentator.

As this column was updated Thursday, more than 14,900 votes had been cast in the unscientific poll, and of those, 12,603 support a repeal of the 1997 gun ban, an 84.35 percent vote. It far out-distanced votes for several other measures that Britons would like to see introduced in the House of Commons, according to the newspaper.


----------



## JoeB131

By their own admission...




> unscientific poll



Nuff said.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> and some other countries only count murders when a CONVICTION occurs, we count them from police records. I have a feeling the other crimes also only count on CONVICTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, um, yeah.
> 
> The UK only had 48 gun murders, and we had 11,101.
> 
> So either British Prosecutors are like something out of a Monty Python Sketch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we really, really have a lot of people being killed with guns...
> 
> I'm going with the latter.
Click to expand...


How many total murders vs. total murders JoeBlow? And if they underreported due to only counting convictions, (which may occur years later) how much closer would the overall numbers be?

A person dead is a person dead, your fear and loathing of guns nonwithstanding. 

Typical JoeDouche delfection when he's caught making crap up. Same old dipshit Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> and some other countries only count murders when a CONVICTION occurs, we count them from police records. I have a feeling the other crimes also only count on CONVICTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, um, yeah.
> 
> The UK only had 48 gun murders, and we had 11,101.
> 
> So either British Prosecutors are like something out of a Monty Python Sketch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we really, really have a lot of people being killed with guns...
> 
> I'm going with the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many total murders vs. total murders JoeBlow? And if they underreported due to only counting convictions, (which may occur years later) how much closer would the overall numbers be?
> 
> A person dead is a person dead, your fear and loathing of guns nonwithstanding.
> 
> Typical JoeDouche delfection when he's caught making crap up. Same old dipshit Joe.
Click to expand...


Total Murders... We had 15,953, the UK had 653.   

Now, given the UK has a population only a quarter of ours, the point is that even adjusting for per capita, we STILL have six times the number of murders they have.... 

Because too many assholes can get their hands on guns.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, um, yeah.
> 
> The UK only had 48 gun murders, and we had 11,101.
> 
> So either British Prosecutors are like something out of a Monty Python Sketch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we really, really have a lot of people being killed with guns...
> 
> I'm going with the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many total murders vs. total murders JoeBlow? And if they underreported due to only counting convictions, (which may occur years later) how much closer would the overall numbers be?
> 
> A person dead is a person dead, your fear and loathing of guns nonwithstanding.
> 
> Typical JoeDouche delfection when he's caught making crap up. Same old dipshit Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total Murders... We had 15,953, the UK had 653.
> 
> Now, given the UK has a population only a quarter of ours, the point is that even adjusting for per capita, we STILL have six times the number of murders they have....
> 
> Because too many assholes can get their hands on guns.
Click to expand...


And this impacts you how?

-Geaux


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, um, yeah.
> 
> The UK only had 48 gun murders, and we had 11,101.
> 
> So either British Prosecutors are like something out of a Monty Python Sketch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or we really, really have a lot of people being killed with guns...
> 
> I'm going with the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many total murders vs. total murders JoeBlow? And if they underreported due to only counting convictions, (which may occur years later) how much closer would the overall numbers be?
> 
> A person dead is a person dead, your fear and loathing of guns nonwithstanding.
> 
> Typical JoeDouche delfection when he's caught making crap up. Same old dipshit Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total Murders... We had 15,953, the UK had 653.
> 
> Now, given the UK has a population only a quarter of ours, the point is that even adjusting for per capita, we STILL have six times the number of murders they have....
> 
> Because too many assholes can get their hands on guns.
Click to expand...


And your solution is to thus stop the non assholes from getting guns, even though the assholes will continue to be able to get them. 

Once JoeDouche, Always JoeDouche


Also the UK has 1/5 our population, not 1/4.  So its 5x not 6, and you still didnt answer the whole crime vs. conviction thing.


----------



## MisterBeale

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo]Gun Control - Watch What Happens When Guns Are Banned. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many total murders vs. total murders JoeBlow? And if they underreported due to only counting convictions, (which may occur years later) how much closer would the overall numbers be?
> 
> A person dead is a person dead, your fear and loathing of guns nonwithstanding.
> 
> Typical JoeDouche delfection when he's caught making crap up. Same old dipshit Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Murders... We had 15,953, the UK had 653.
> 
> Now, given the UK has a population only a quarter of ours, the point is that even adjusting for per capita, we STILL have six times the number of murders they have....
> 
> Because too many assholes can get their hands on guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your solution is to thus stop the non assholes from getting guns, even though the assholes will continue to be able to get them.
> 
> Once JoeDouche, Always JoeDouche.
Click to expand...


If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them. 

Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out. 

The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.


----------



## Geaux4it

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many total murders vs. total murders JoeBlow? And if they underreported due to only counting convictions, (which may occur years later) how much closer would the overall numbers be?
> 
> A person dead is a person dead, your fear and loathing of guns nonwithstanding.
> 
> Typical JoeDouche delfection when he's caught making crap up. Same old dipshit Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Murders... We had 15,953, the UK had 653.
> 
> Now, given the UK has a population only a quarter of ours, the point is that even adjusting for per capita, we STILL have six times the number of murders they have....
> 
> Because too many assholes can get their hands on guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your solution is to thus stop the non assholes from getting guns, even though the assholes will continue to be able to get them.
> 
> Once JoeDouche, Always JoeDouche.
Click to expand...


Indeed

-Geaux


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total Murders... We had 15,953, the UK had 653.
> 
> Now, given the UK has a population only a quarter of ours, the point is that even adjusting for per capita, we STILL have six times the number of murders they have....
> 
> Because too many assholes can get their hands on guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your solution is to thus stop the non assholes from getting guns, even though the assholes will continue to be able to get them.
> 
> Once JoeDouche, Always JoeDouche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them. *
> 
> Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out.
> 
> The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.
Click to expand...


and sugar pop lopilpop fairies will spread pixie dust, sheep will lie with lions, and JoeB will actually have a rational thought. 

The same old "BAN ALL GUNS = NO GUN CRIME" mantra of the failed grabbers. 

Again, Joe, MOVE THERE.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your solution is to thus stop the non assholes from getting guns, even though the assholes will continue to be able to get them.
> 
> Once JoeDouche, Always JoeDouche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them. *
> 
> Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out.
> 
> The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and sugar pop lopilpop fairies will spread pixie dust, sheep will lie with lions, and JoeB will actually have a rational thought.
> 
> The same old "BAN ALL GUNS = NO GUN CRIME" mantra of the failed grabbers.
> 
> Again, Joe, MOVE THERE.
Click to expand...


Again, we are going to fix this country by taking it back from the Gun Nuts, the God Nuts, and the TEA Nuts.  

Last night you guys tasted humiliating defeat.  Expect a lot more of that.  The country has turned on you.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them. *
> 
> Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out.
> 
> The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sugar pop lopilpop fairies will spread pixie dust, sheep will lie with lions, and JoeB will actually have a rational thought.
> 
> The same old "BAN ALL GUNS = NO GUN CRIME" mantra of the failed grabbers.
> 
> Again, Joe, MOVE THERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are going to fix this country by taking it back from the Gun Nuts, the God Nuts, and the TEA Nuts.
> 
> Last night you guys tasted humiliating defeat.  Expect a lot more of that.  The country has turned on you.
Click to expand...


Keep dreaming, and keep being fed the drivel the MSM gives you. 

If you want to "fix" gun ownership in the US, use the amendment process. 99% of my utter disdain and comptempt for you comes from your own disdain and contempt for the consitutional process. That makes you a fascist and a giant asshole.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them. *
> 
> Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out.
> 
> The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sugar pop lopilpop fairies will spread pixie dust, sheep will lie with lions, and JoeB will actually have a rational thought.
> 
> The same old "BAN ALL GUNS = NO GUN CRIME" mantra of the failed grabbers.
> 
> Again, Joe, MOVE THERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are going to fix this country by taking it back from the Gun Nuts, the God Nuts, and the TEA Nuts.
> 
> Last night you guys tasted humiliating defeat.  Expect a lot more of that.  The country has turned on you.
Click to expand...


Shaking in my boots here

I'll have coffee waiting

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

[youtube]DuhKCiY-lu0[/youtube]


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pragmatically, every other industrialized democracy either LIMITS or BANS private gun ownership.
> 
> They are just as free as we aer, they have less crime, and they get by just fine.
> 
> What they don't have are gun manufacturers who keep pouring gasoline on the fire because they are selling the gasoliine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't either. That is all in your delusioned head. And since those other countries are deprived of a choice that we have they are by definition less free. You keep spouting about other countries banning guns. The mere fact that they undertake some policy does not in of itself make it good or moral policy. The fact that 'other countries do it' is a truly meaningless argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes excellent moral policy.  They've made a calculation that the benefits of arming citizens (there really aren't any) is outweighed by the lives saved in reductions in crime, murder, suicides and accidents.
> 
> And trust me, the minute we start holding the gun companies financially liable, will be the minute they won't be so keen on selling guns to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.
Click to expand...


This is the same lie your tried to tell last time. Prove the above came from a gun manufacturer. All you have here is photoshop cut and paste. It's amazing to me how someone would be so stupid to be so blatantly dishonest.

And yes there are benefits. The benefits of being able to defend your own life for starters. The gun companies have nothing to do with the Lanzas. Whomever manufactured those guns is no more responsible than the auto company that manufactured the car that driven by a drunk driver that kills a family.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them. *
> 
> Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out.
> 
> The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and sugar pop lopilpop fairies will spread pixie dust, sheep will lie with lions, and JoeB will actually have a rational thought.
> 
> The same old "BAN ALL GUNS = NO GUN CRIME" mantra of the failed grabbers.
> 
> Again, Joe, MOVE THERE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we are going to fix this country by taking it back from the Gun Nuts, the God Nuts, and the TEA Nuts.
> 
> Last night you guys tasted humiliating defeat.  Expect a lot more of that.  The country has turned on you.
Click to expand...


If by becoming more and more a nation of pussies like yourself, unfortunately you're right.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> [
> 
> Keep dreaming, and keep being fed the drivel the MSM gives you.
> 
> If you want to "fix" gun ownership in the US, use the amendment process. 99% of my utter disdain and comptempt for you comes from your own disdain and contempt for the consitutional process. That makes you a fascist and a giant asshole.



No, I just use the process. 

The only thing that keeps your Crazy-Town interpretation of the 2nd Amendment afloat and safe from the vast majority who want common sense gun control is five asshole justices on Scotus, some of whom are in their late 70's.  

Only a matter of time before they kick off and get replaced by common sense liberal justices who say, "Um, yeah, Joker HOlmes, Cho, Loughner and Lanza do not constitute a Well-Regulated Militia.  They are kind of the opposite of that."


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Keep dreaming, and keep being fed the drivel the MSM gives you.
> 
> If you want to "fix" gun ownership in the US, use the amendment process. 99% of my utter disdain and comptempt for you comes from your own disdain and contempt for the consitutional process. That makes you a fascist and a giant asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just use the process.
> 
> The only thing that keeps your Crazy-Town interpretation of the 2nd Amendment afloat and safe from the vast majority who want common sense gun control is five asshole justices on Scotus, some of whom are in their late 70's.
> 
> Only a matter of time before they kick off and get replaced by common sense liberal justices who say, "Um, yeah, Joker HOlmes, Cho, Loughner and Lanza do not constitute a Well-Regulated Militia.  They are kind of the opposite of that."
Click to expand...


So you are depending on the courts to mis-interpret the amendment to get your way. Fascist through and through. and a pussy. and an idiot. and a loser. and a lazy fuck. 

The states get the militas, the PEOPLE get the arms. The government is NOT the people.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Actually, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes excellent moral policy.  They've made a calculation that the benefits of arming citizens (there really aren't any) is outweighed by the lives saved in reductions in crime, murder, suicides and accidents.
> 
> And trust me, the minute we start holding the gun companies financially liable, will be the minute they won't be so keen on selling guns to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is the same lie your tried to tell last time. Prove the above came from a gun manufacturer.* All you have here is photoshop cut and paste. It's amazing to me how someone would be so stupid to be so blatantly dishonest.
> 
> And yes there are benefits. The benefits of being able to defend your own life for starters. The gun companies have nothing to do with the Lanzas. Whomever manufactured those guns is no more responsible than the auto company that manufactured the car that driven by a drunk driver that kills a family.
Click to expand...


That's where you are going to go? "That's not a real ad!!!!" 

Um, yeah, it is. 

Bushmaster ?Man Card? ads: Consider your decency card revoked - Editorials - The Boston Globe

Bushmaster Firearms, Your Man Card Is Revoked

Bushmaster pulled it down right after Newtown, for some reason. (Probably because that was the gun used to kill all those kids.)


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Joe is still going on even after I trashed his hard on for the Kellermann study? Wow, talk about a glutton for punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean when you proved you really didn't understand what the Kellerman Study was about.
> 
> I've explained it to you several time, BiPolar boy.    I'm not sure what else I can do for you.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal argument.  Your standard for yourself is a line painted on the floor.  These have been explained to you several times, and you have no answer.  You're hiding from me completely.

1)  The Kellerman study only looked at actual shootings, it did not look at the big picture, which are all the times no shots were fired in self defense, which dwarfs what was studied.  The big picture is never addressed by liberals because it never works to your advantage, so you have to splice a single statistic.

2)  You're continuing to beg the question by assuming that if guns did not exist, bam, no crime.  Everyone is safe, we can all go home now.  You're wrong on that obviously, which is why you can't support your contention, you just assume it's true.

3)  You're also still begging the question still by assuming the truth of your own position that gun laws would remove guns and you have no plan to do that other than doing what we do with drugs, and it will work because "France."

4)  From a liberty standpoint, government cannot protect us from crime, they can only follow up when they are committed.  How is it liberty then to prevent us from protecting ourselves?

What you have not done in post after post is answer the question in the op.  Since you propose to make guns illegal (technically you are putting them out of business, the result is the same) and follow the war on drugs template, why will what does not work for drugs at all work for guns?  "France" is not an answer.  You're not even a good dancer.  

W thought he looked somehow Reaganesque, above the fray, when he didn't respond to his critics.  However, he was wrong on both counts.  Reagan did respond, just didn't get in the mud with them. W didn't, and he far from his self perception looked clueless and uninformed.

You aren't addressing anything, you aren't grasping it.  You are just like W, your failure to address the points just make you look clueless.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Actually, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes excellent moral policy.  They've made a calculation that the benefits of arming citizens (there really aren't any) is outweighed by the lives saved in reductions in crime, murder, suicides and accidents.
> 
> And trust me, the minute we start holding the gun companies financially liable, will be the minute they won't be so keen on selling guns to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is the same lie your tried to tell last time. Prove the above came from a gun manufacturer.* All you have here is photoshop cut and paste. It's amazing to me how someone would be so stupid to be so blatantly dishonest.
> 
> And yes there are benefits. The benefits of being able to defend your own life for starters. The gun companies have nothing to do with the Lanzas. Whomever manufactured those guns is no more responsible than the auto company that manufactured the car that driven by a drunk driver that kills a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are going to go? "That's not a real ad!!!!"
> 
> Um, yeah, it is.
> 
> Bushmaster ?Man Card? ads: Consider your decency card revoked - Editorials - The Boston Globe
> 
> Bushmaster Firearms, Your Man Card Is Revoked
> 
> Bushmaster pulled it down right after Newtown, for some reason. (Probably because that was the gun used to kill all those kids.)
Click to expand...


You still haven't proven anything. As your article itself states the connection between guns and masculinity is ridiculous. It's meant to be comical. And it shows you really don't understand the mentality of the vast majorituy of gun owners. Though I understand how that escapes you. Nor does it prove that a manufacturer is knowingly marketing to people they think are violent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are horseshit figures.
> 
> The US figures only include about four crimes, while those other countries count ALL violent crimes.
Click to expand...


Provide you with facts and all you do is bury your head in the sand put your fingers in your ears and shout Nananananananananananana over and over.


----------



## KevinWestern

JoeB131 said:


> If you get them out of everyone's hands, no one will have them.
> 
> Like I sad, the Japanese have figured this out. The Germans have figured this out. The Brits have figured this out.
> 
> The Americans are like the Retard who writes down "2+2=Cat" and wonder why the rest of the class laughs at him.



No one will have them? Personally, I haven't heard of a single initiative (correct me if I'm wrong) calling for our military and gov't officials to hand in all their firearms as well. Have you?  

The problem with gun control is the word _control_. Note that it's never "gun elimination". _Someone _will always have a gun. 

And I don't know if you study history, but there's enough examples in the past 10 years alone to show that gov'ts and economic situations do go bad (quite often) and that the US certainly isn't immune to this sort of thing. 

When and if the shit hits the fan (hope it never does, but...), personally I'd like to have more control over the well being of my family than trusting it to a gov't official w/its own agenda.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Actually, we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes excellent moral policy.  They've made a calculation that the benefits of arming citizens (there really aren't any) is outweighed by the lives saved in reductions in crime, murder, suicides and accidents.
> 
> And trust me, the minute we start holding the gun companies financially liable, will be the minute they won't be so keen on selling guns to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is the same lie your tried to tell last time. Prove the above came from a gun manufacturer.* All you have here is photoshop cut and paste. It's amazing to me how someone would be so stupid to be so blatantly dishonest.
> 
> And yes there are benefits. The benefits of being able to defend your own life for starters. The gun companies have nothing to do with the Lanzas. Whomever manufactured those guns is no more responsible than the auto company that manufactured the car that driven by a drunk driver that kills a family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are going to go? "That's not a real ad!!!!"
> 
> Um, yeah, it is.
> 
> Bushmaster ?Man Card? ads: Consider your decency card revoked - Editorials - The Boston Globe
> 
> Bushmaster Firearms, Your Man Card Is Revoked
> 
> Bushmaster pulled it down right after Newtown, for some reason. (Probably because that was the gun used to kill all those kids.)
Click to expand...


What's wrong with that ad?  They sell cars, yard equipment, tools, lots of things that way.  There's nothing targeting criminals or any of the other crap you claimed.  You wanted an ad that appealed to you and your gay friends after you vacuum the carpet and admire the tapestry and sit down for a spot of tea, gay boy?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I already provided the evidence that Joe's claim that Germany, France, Great Brain and Canada are less violent then us is wrong. Hell Italy has the same rate as us as well.

Of course NOW he supports the notion that certain countries don't report the same, bring that up about firearm violence and he will revert to his claim it is the same.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> [
> 
> Typical liberal argument.  Your standard for yourself is a line painted on the floor.  These have been explained to you several times, and you have no answer.  You're hiding from me completely.
> 
> 1)  The Kellerman study only looked at actual shootings, it did not look at the big picture, which are all the times no shots were fired in self defense, which dwarfs what was studied.  The big picture is never addressed by liberals because it never works to your advantage, so you have to splice a single statistic.



Except that they measured the ONLY statistic that mattered.  Gun Deaths.   Counting "how many times I felt better because I had a gun" vs. "how many time I threatened my family with that gun" is kind of unknowable and besides the point.  




> 2)  You're continuing to beg the question by assuming that if guns did not exist, bam, no crime.  Everyone is safe, we can all go home now.  You're wrong on that obviously, which is why you can't support your contention, you just assume it's true.




No, I'm saying if you have less guns, you have less gun death.  Here's the thing. Most gun deaths are NOT hardened criminals hunting someone down.  They are accidents, suicides and arguments within a household that go horribly wrong.  Remove those from the mix, THEN you can concentrate on reducing the other thing.  





> 3)  You're also still begging the question still by assuming the truth of your own position that gun laws would remove guns and you have no plan to do that other than doing what we do with drugs, and it will work because "France."



And "Germany" and "England" and "Japan" and "Italy" and...  Every other country that's tried it has gotten the desired result.  




> 4)  From a liberty standpoint, government cannot protect us from crime, they can only follow up when they are committed.  How is it liberty then to prevent us from protecting ourselves?



As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.)  It isn't the criminal that's the problem.  It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.


----------



## Steven_R

JoeB131 said:


> As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.)  It isn't the criminal that's the problem.  It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.



There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?

Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.


----------



## JoeB131

Steven_R said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.)  It isn't the criminal that's the problem.  It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?
> 
> *Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? *Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.
Click to expand...


Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.  

Here's a better example.  13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001.  Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day.  Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again?  Um. Yeah.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.)  It isn't the criminal that's the problem.  It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?
> 
> *Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? *Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.
> 
> Here's a better example.  13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001.  Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day.  Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again?  Um. Yeah.
Click to expand...


Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [quo
> 
> Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.



No, the only thing you proved to me is that whoever is writing your scripts needs to go to a stronger dose... 

We are the most violent country in the industrialized world.  Period.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only thing you proved to me is that whoever is writing your scripts needs to go to a stronger dose...
> 
> We are the most violent country in the industrialized world.  Period.
Click to expand...


No we are not. I provided PROVEN links to FACTS. You are a lying moron and stupid to boot. England is over 3 times as violent, Germany almost twice as well as France , Canada over twice. The list is endless.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.



Again for the truly stupid and slow.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again for the truly stupid and slow.
Click to expand...


Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.   

They got it right, we got it wrong.  

Period.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (The comic character, not  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] the poster, who is a pretty good guy.)  It isn't the criminal that's the problem.  It's the rest of us who really can't show very good judgement. It's the guy who shoots his own kid because he mistook him for a burglar or the kid who decided that his teenage angst needed a body count with dad's gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?
> 
> *Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? *Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.
> 
> Here's a better example.  13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001.  Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day.  Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again?  Um. Yeah.
Click to expand...


Again, if you were consistent in your argument, you would not insists we take precautions. You would insist on banning travel by airplane because that's exactly what you keep arguing with guns. That even though the incidents of violence and related injury and accidents is miniscule compared to the number of guns out there they should all be banned. Again, to be consistent in your argument you would need to insist that no one fly on planes anymore.


----------



## Bern80

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again for the truly stupid and slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.
> 
> They got it right, we got it wrong.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are over 100,000,000 American gun owners who didn't kill anyone today. Why should they all be treated like idiots who are irresponsible when they have done nothing to show they are irresponsible?
> 
> *Right now there is someone in America convincing a friend to join a cult. Should we restrict religion because that guy doesn't show very good judgment? *Maybe restrict freedom of the press because someone somewhere is writing a threatening letter to someone he is stalking? Gang members are congregating on a street corner and selling drugs. Maybe we need to eliminate the right to assembly because some people don't have the judgment to not join criminal organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works for me. A world without religion would truly be a better place.
> 
> Here's a better example.  13,000 flights were in the air on 9/11/2001.  Only FOUR Of those were crashed into buildings that day.  Should we take a bunch of sensible precautions to keep that from happening again?  Um. Yeah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if you were consistent in your argument. You would not insists we take precautions. You wind insist on banning travel by airplane because that's exactly what you keep arguing with guns. That even though the incidents of violence and related injury and accidents is miniscule compared to the number of guns out there they should all be banned. Again, to be consistent in your argument you would need to insist that no one fly on planes anymore.
Click to expand...


the people are fed up with the idiotic instance of the leftists 

to  infringe on ones right to self defense 

this time 

a recall effort of 4 democrats in Exeter  Rhode Island

we are coming after those who are coming for our guns 

Rhode Island Firearm Owners' League - Exeter Recall

the recall election will take place in the first half of December 2013

Exeter will have recall vote on 4 council members challenged over gun-permit resolution | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> the people are fed up with the idiotic instance of the leftists
> 
> to  infringe on ones right to self defense
> 
> this time
> 
> a recall effort of 4 democrats in Exeter  Rhode Island
> 
> we are coming after those who are coming for our guns


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't list per capita but one can easily see that we are not the leader based on population compared to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> By population and crime stats.
> 
> Germany has about 1/4th our population and has more then half as many violent crimes per year.
> 
> France has about 1/5th our population and has 1/3rd the number of violent crimes per year.
> 
> Britain has about 1/5th our population and has over half as many violent crimes as we do per year.
> 
> Canada has 1/9th as many people as us and has a little more then 1/4th as many violent crimes a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again for the truly stupid and slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.
> 
> They got it right, we got it wrong.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


Murder is not the only indicator of violence. Moron.


----------



## JoeB131

Bern80 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again for the truly stupid and slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.
> 
> They got it right, we got it wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?
Click to expand...


They don't have THAT many less people.  

They have 25% of the people we have...

and only 3.5% the number of murders.

Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership.  There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans. 

But they severely restrict who can own them.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.
> 
> They got it right, we got it wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have THAT many less people.
> 
> They have 25% of the people we have...
> 
> and only 3.5% the number of murders.
> 
> Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership.  There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.
> 
> But they severely restrict who can own them.
Click to expand...


Who gives a rats a$$ Real Americans US, win- Communist Anti-Americans YOU, lose

We keep our guns, you keep your knife

Stock the guns deep and the ammo higher

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

Thanks NRA- I will send something in the mail for you tomorrow

-Geaux


U.S. Senate and House Send Letters Saying "NO" to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
posted on October 18, 2013

Print	
Share on print
Email	
Share on email
Share	
More Sharing Services Share on facebook Share on twitter
In October of 2009, at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama administration reversed the positions of the two previous administrations and voted for the United States to participate in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. On September 25, 2013, Obama's designs on international gun control were realized, as Secretary of State John Kerry signed the ATT on behalf of the Obama administration. The NRA strongly opposes this treaty, which clearly jeopardizes the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is already on record in opposition to ratification of the ATT. On March 23rd of this year, the Senate adopted an amendment to its FY 2014 Budget Resolution, offered by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), which establishes a deficit-neutral fund for "the purpose of preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." This amendment is in addition to the previous efforts of Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) to pass concurrent resolutions opposing the treaty in their respective chambers.

This week, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House released concurrent, bipartisan letters pledging their opposition to ratification of the ATT. 

As detailed in his press release, on October 15th, Sen. Moran led a bipartisan group of 50 U.S. Senators, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jim Inhofe, in reiterating to President Obama that the Senate overwhelmingly opposes the ratification of the ATT and will not be bound by its obligations.

"The Administration's recent signing of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a direct dismissal of the bipartisan Senate majority that rejects this treaty," Sen. Moran said.  "Throughout this process, it has been disturbing to watch the Administration reverse U.S. policies, abandon its own 'red line' negotiation principles, admit publicly the treaty's dangerous ambiguity, and hastily review the final treaty text.  Today I join my colleagues in upholding the fundamental individual rights of Americans by reiterating our rejection of the ATT.  The Senate will overwhelmingly oppose ratification, and will not be bound by the treaty."

The press release further notes that, in the letter to the president, the Senators outline six reasons why they will not give advice and consent to the treaty and are therefore not bound to uphold the treaty's object and purpose.

"We urge you to notify the treaty depository that the U.S. does not intend to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, and is therefore not bound by its obligations," the 50 Senators wrote to President Obama.

As noted by Senior Research Fellow, Ted Bromund, in a Heritage Foundation blog article, while the Senate has the lead responsibility for treaties, the House must pass any implementing legislation that is necessary to bring a treaty into effect.  Because it has the power of the purse, it is also particularly responsible for funding the implementation of the ATT.  A bipartisan letter, paralleling the one in the Senate and led by Representatives Mike Kelly and Collin Peterson (D&#8211;Minn.), has been signed by 181 Members--more than 40 percent of the House.

Rep. Kelly's press release notes that the House letter includes members of House Leadership, such as Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas), and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

Rep. Kelly said in the release, "Today the People's House takes a stand for national sovereignty where the White House failed to do so.  The ATT is a clear threat to the Constitutional rights of all Americans and should never have been signed.  This letter makes it absolutely clear to President Obama and his cabinet that the United States Congress will not support any implementing legislation to give this dangerous treaty the legs it needs to take effect.  We will also oppose any efforts by this administration or future ones to implement or enforce this treaty through executive action.  The liberty of the American people and the independence of the United States are far too sacred to ever be sacrificed at the altar of a dysfunctional global institution like the United Nations.  For the sake of our freedom at home and our strength abroad, this fight must continue."

(The Senate letter can be accessed via Sen. Moran's press release, and the House letter can be accessed via Rep Kelly's press release.)

Once a treaty has been signed, it normally remains available for the Senate to ratify in perpetuity, unless a later president withdraws from it. This means that American gun owners must remain vigilant in ensuring this treaty is never ratified. 

NRA applauds those Members of Congress who signed these letters and reaffirmed their commitment to stand by the Second Amendment and America's millions of law-abiding gun owners by opposing the U.N. ATT. The NRA will continue to work with our allies in the Congress to ensure the treaty remains unratified.

But as important as these letters are, they are not the end of the story. As Ted Bromund, concluded in his Heritage Foundation blog article, the State Department accepts under the customary international law of treaties that the U.S. is bound not to violate the "object and purpose" of a signed but unratified treaty. Both Senate and House letters reject this assertion.  Further, the Administration has implied that it can implement the ATT through its existing authorities and without new appropriations. It is therefore incumbent on the Senate and House to reject this claim, hold appropriate hearings on the treaty and the Administration's proposed implementation of it, and prepare the way for this President or a future one to "unsign" the ATT.


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have THAT many less people.
> 
> They have 25% of the people we have...
> 
> and only 3.5% the number of murders.
> 
> Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership.  There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.
> 
> But they severely restrict who can own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who gives a rats a$$ Real Americans US, win- Communist Anti-Americans YOU, lose
> 
> We keep our guns, you keep your knife
> 
> Stock the guns deep and the ammo higher
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Government will always have bigger, better guns, and when they take you away, the neighbors will be cheering because you were frightening the children.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have THAT many less people.
> 
> They have 25% of the people we have...
> 
> and only 3.5% the number of murders.
> 
> Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership.  There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.
> 
> But they severely restrict who can own them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a rats a$$ Real Americans US, win- Communist Anti-Americans YOU, lose
> 
> We keep our guns, you keep your knife
> 
> Stock the guns deep and the ammo higher
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government will always have bigger, better guns, and when they take you away, the neighbors will be cheering because you were frightening the children.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

On more time, guy. 

A gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill you than a bad guy.


----------



## MonaGonna

*Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

Republicans and NRA nuts won't let anyone do anything. After Sandy Hook, the prez of the NRA said that instead of keeping guns out of unstable peoples hands, we need more people armed, like teachers, to counter gun violence. Any dumber than that, and you die.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MonaGonna said:


> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Republicans and NRA nuts won't let anyone do anything. After Sandy Hook, the prez of the NRA said that instead of keeping guns out of unstable peoples hands, we need more people armed, like teachers, to counter gun violence. Any dumber than that, and you die.



are you saying the teachers are unstable


----------



## MonaGonna

jon_berzerk said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Republicans and NRA nuts won't let anyone do anything. After Sandy Hook, the prez of the NRA said that instead of keeping guns out of unstable peoples hands, we need more people armed, like teachers, to counter gun violence. Any dumber than that, and you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying the teachers are unstable
Click to expand...


No, just you, you can't even read.


----------



## JoeB131

jon_berzerk said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Republicans and NRA nuts won't let anyone do anything. After Sandy Hook, the prez of the NRA said that instead of keeping guns out of unstable peoples hands, we need more people armed, like teachers, to counter gun violence. Any dumber than that, and you die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying the teachers are unstable
Click to expand...


I'm saying Teachers have enough stress in their lives without having to worry about "Where did I leave that gun?  OH MY GOD, BILLY, PUT THAT DOWN!!!!"


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> On more time, guy.
> 
> A gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill you than a bad guy.



And one more time guy

Acceptable risk 

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

The Gun Nut Dream for America...


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On more time, guy.
> 
> A gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill you than a bad guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And one more time guy
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Given the propensity to shoot neighbors, kids, etc, not to the rest of us, it isn't.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On more time, guy.
> 
> A gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill you than a bad guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And one more time guy
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the propensity to shoot neighbors, kids, etc, not to the rest of us, it isn't.
Click to expand...


Who exactly is us?

Let me guess, the ones whom's voices are irrelevant?

Trees falling in forest nobody hears make bigger noise

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Again, next school shooting, the 46 minority senators who blocked this bill will be VERY sorry they did.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Again, next school shooting, the 46 minority senators who blocked this bill will be VERY sorry they did.



Um, no they wont

Next

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, next school shooting, the 46 minority senators who blocked this bill will be VERY sorry they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no they wont
> 
> Next
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Yeah, they will.  

The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, next school shooting, the 46 minority senators who blocked this bill will be VERY sorry they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no they wont
> 
> Next
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they will.
> 
> The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it

What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.

Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.

I'm down with that

BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation. 

It's for the children

-Geaux


----------



## zeke

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no they wont
> 
> Next
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they will.
> 
> The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...



It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control. And they learned how to do it from the Rethugs.

Shut down the government and default of the debt IF they don't get their way with gun control.

Won't it be great Gofor? I know you supported the Repubs effort to repeal Obamacare by default and shutdown.

You won't be mad when the Dems use that same tactic on gun control will ya?


----------



## Geaux4it

zeke said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they will.
> 
> The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control. And they learned how to do it from the Rethugs.
> 
> Shut down the government and default of the debt IF they don't get their way with gun control.
> 
> Won't it be great Gofor? I know you supported the Repubs effort to repeal Obamacare by default and shutdown.
> 
> You won't be mad when the Dems use that same tactic on gun control will ya?
Click to expand...


Let er rip

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

zeke said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they will.
> 
> The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control. And they learned how to do it from the Rethugs.
> 
> Shut down the government and default of the debt IF they don't get their way with gun control.
> 
> Won't it be great Gofor? I know you supported the Repubs effort to repeal Obamacare by default and shutdown.
> 
> You won't be mad when the Dems use that same tactic on gun control will ya?
Click to expand...


*It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control*. 

is it 

four dem council member face re call election 

October 17, 2013

EXETER, RI  We the People of Exeter is announcing the grassroots effort to seek redress of our concerns has been successful. The Exeter Board of Canvassers has certified the recall of four town councilors initiated by the hard working Exeter citizens, who were ignored and dismissed, by those councilors while trying to protect their constitutional rights.

If these four councilors had spent as much time talking to the citizens of Exeter as they have spent talking to the press the past few weeks, we would not be here, said petitioner Joseph St. Lawrence.

While firearms licensing was the subject of the underlying debate, this is not, as some members of the council falsely claim, merely a firearms issue. First, they refused to listen to constructive criticism regarding the rights of the citizens by limiting comment and frustrating Exeter residents who were unable to speak on the issue. Now, they dismiss petitions from 600 citizens as petty. This is just the arrogant and unresponsive attitude that galvanized this recall.

Rhode Island Firearm Owners' League - Exeter Recall

 recall election will take place in the first half of December 2013


----------



## Geaux4it

jon_berzerk said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control. And they learned how to do it from the Rethugs.
> 
> Shut down the government and default of the debt IF they don't get their way with gun control.
> 
> Won't it be great Gofor? I know you supported the Repubs effort to repeal Obamacare by default and shutdown.
> 
> You won't be mad when the Dems use that same tactic on gun control will ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control*.
> 
> is it
> 
> four dem council member face re call election
> 
> October 17, 2013
> 
> EXETER, RI  We the People of Exeter is announcing the grassroots effort to seek redress of our concerns has been successful. The Exeter Board of Canvassers has certified the recall of four town councilors initiated by the hard working Exeter citizens, who were ignored and dismissed, by those councilors while trying to protect their constitutional rights.
> 
> If these four councilors had spent as much time talking to the citizens of Exeter as they have spent talking to the press the past few weeks, we would not be here, said petitioner Joseph St. Lawrence.
> 
> While firearms licensing was the subject of the underlying debate, this is not, as some members of the council falsely claim, merely a firearms issue. First, they refused to listen to constructive criticism regarding the rights of the citizens by limiting comment and frustrating Exeter residents who were unable to speak on the issue. Now, they dismiss petitions from 600 citizens as petty. This is just the arrogant and unresponsive attitude that galvanized this recall.
> 
> Rhode Island Firearm Owners' League - Exeter Recall
> 
> recall election will take place in the first half of December 2013
Click to expand...


Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

WASHINGTON -- The first recall election in Colorado's history on Tuesday marked a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association and gun rights activists, with the ouster of two Democrats -- Senate President John Morse (Colorado Springs) and state Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo). The two lawmakers were the target of separate recall fights over their support for stricter gun laws earlier this year.

"The highest rank in a democracy is citizen, not senate president," Morse said in his concession speech, as his supporters solemnly watched, some shedding tears.

What originally began as local political fallout over the Democratic-controlled legislature's comprehensive gun control package quickly escalated into a national referendum on gun policy. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.


----------



## Antares

Poor Joe, he lives in total fear of an armed citizenry.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Already proved to you that your vaunted European Countries are awash in violence at a higher rate then the US. Even Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only thing you proved to me is that whoever is writing your scripts needs to go to a stronger dose...
> 
> We are the most violent country in the industrialized world.  Period.
Click to expand...


LOL, Joe types, therefore it is true.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control. And they learned how to do it from the Rethugs.
> 
> Shut down the government and default of the debt IF they don't get their way with gun control.
> 
> Won't it be great Gofor? I know you supported the Repubs effort to repeal Obamacare by default and shutdown.
> 
> You won't be mad when the Dems use that same tactic on gun control will ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control*.
> 
> is it
> 
> four dem council member face re call election
> 
> October 17, 2013
> 
> EXETER, RI  We the People of Exeter is announcing the grassroots effort to seek redress of our concerns has been successful. The Exeter Board of Canvassers has certified the recall of four town councilors initiated by the hard working Exeter citizens, who were ignored and dismissed, by those councilors while trying to protect their constitutional rights.
> 
> If these four councilors had spent as much time talking to the citizens of Exeter as they have spent talking to the press the past few weeks, we would not be here, said petitioner Joseph St. Lawrence.
> 
> While firearms licensing was the subject of the underlying debate, this is not, as some members of the council falsely claim, merely a firearms issue. First, they refused to listen to constructive criticism regarding the rights of the citizens by limiting comment and frustrating Exeter residents who were unable to speak on the issue. Now, they dismiss petitions from 600 citizens as petty. This is just the arrogant and unresponsive attitude that galvanized this recall.
> 
> Rhode Island Firearm Owners' League - Exeter Recall
> 
> recall election will take place in the first half of December 2013
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA
> 
> Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The first recall election in Colorado's history on Tuesday marked a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association and gun rights activists, with the ouster of two Democrats -- Senate President John Morse (Colorado Springs) and state Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo). The two lawmakers were the target of separate recall fights over their support for stricter gun laws earlier this year.
> 
> "The highest rank in a democracy is citizen, not senate president," Morse said in his concession speech, as his supporters solemnly watched, some shedding tears.
> 
> What originally began as local political fallout over the Democratic-controlled legislature's comprehensive gun control package quickly escalated into a national referendum on gun policy. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.
Click to expand...


absolutlely 

now Colorado is staging another recall

When a pair of Colorado lawmakers were recalled last month in a referendum on gun control, opponents had this to console them: At least, they said, the twin defeats did not alter the balance of power in Denver, the state capital.

Now gun rights advocates are looking to change that.

Organizers have received official go-ahead to start gathering signatures in a bid to oust state Sen. Evie Hudak, a Democrat from the Denver suburb of Westminister, who was the target of a failed recall petition drive earlier this year. The group, certified by Colorado's secretary of State, has until Dec. 3 to collect just over 18,900 signatures to force a vote.

The stakes: control of the state Senate, which Democrats hold by a tenuous 18-17 edge. 

Hudak, who is in her second term, was one of four lawmakers originally targeted after the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a series of sweeping gun controls in response to mass shootings last year in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. The measures, signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, include a requirement for universal background checks and a limit on ammunition magazines like the one used in the July 2012 theater shootings in Aurora, another suburb of Denver.

Stakes grow in new Colorado gun control recall effort - latimes.com


----------



## jon_berzerk

Gun Grabbers Vs Citizens on Concealed Carry Exeter-RI

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3ezvOAVO4U#t=983]Gun Grabbers Vs Citizens on Concealed Carry Exeter-RI - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MonaGonna

I couldn't live in a country with guns nuts like Geaux, as well as the NRA, where things like the Sandy Hook shooting get defended by the mentally inept.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> I couldn't live in a country with guns nuts like Geaux, as well as the NRA, where things like the Sandy Hook shooting get defended by the mentally inept.



Don't let the door hit you in the ass

-Geaux


----------



## Wildman

MonaGonna said:


> I couldn't live in a country with guns nuts like Geaux, as well as the NRA, where things like the Sandy Hook shooting get defended by the mentally inept.



where do presently live ? China ??


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't live in a country with guns nuts like Geaux, as well as the NRA, where things like the Sandy Hook shooting get defended by the mentally inept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Don't worry, I don't even visit the US anymore, not a safe place to be. More people die by gunshot in the US every year than in all of Iraq and Afghanistan put together and multiplied by about 50. So it's safer to vacation in Afghanistan than it is to go to the US.


----------



## Wildman

JoeB131 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the Germans had 600 murders and we had 16,000.
> 
> They got it right, we got it wrong.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have less people you moron. How intellectually dishonest are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have THAT many less people.
> 
> They have 25% of the people we have...
> 
> and only 3.5% the number of murders.
> 
> Now here's the gag. Germany does not totally ban gun ownership.  There are about 17 million guns for 80 million germans.
> 
> But they severely restrict who can own them.
Click to expand...


joeboy, where do you live ??? Cuba ?? China ?? or ?????
why do you hate religion ? our USA was founded by some very religious people, why do you hate guns and their owners ? GUNS is what made us the very free country we are today...., BUT !! due to people like you we are slowly losing our freedoms and GOD given liberties


----------



## MonaGonna

Wildman said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't live in a country with guns nuts like Geaux, as well as the NRA, where things like the Sandy Hook shooting get defended by the mentally inept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where do presently live ? China ??
Click to expand...


China is pretty funny I agree. I live in Canada. VERY safe place to raise a family, people don't attack schools here on a regular basis with automatic weapons.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't live in a country with guns nuts like Geaux, as well as the NRA, where things like the Sandy Hook shooting get defended by the mentally inept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, I don't even visit the US anymore, not a safe place to be. More people die by gunshot in the US every year than in all of Iraq and Afghanistan put together and multiplied by about 50. So it's safer to vacation in Afghanistan than it is to go to the US.
Click to expand...


What a stupid post.  Was your cancelled vacation plan to go to south central LA?


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, I don't even visit the US anymore, not a safe place to be. More people die by gunshot in the US every year than in all of Iraq and Afghanistan put together and multiplied by about 50. So it's safer to vacation in Afghanistan than it is to go to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid post.  Was your cancelled vacation plan to go to south central LA?
Click to expand...


perhaps the prezbos home town of Chicago a gun free zone btw


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the door hit you in the ass
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, I don't even visit the US anymore, not a safe place to be. More people die by gunshot in the US every year than in all of Iraq and Afghanistan put together and multiplied by about 50. So it's safer to vacation in Afghanistan than it is to go to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid post.  Was your cancelled vacation plan to go to south central LA?
Click to expand...


Actually, my cousin lives not far from the Sandy Hook shooting. Too scary. She understands.


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no they wont
> 
> Next
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they will.
> 
> The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


The NRA is about as good for Children as NAMBLA.


----------



## JoeB131

Wildman said:


> [
> 
> joeboy, where do you live ??? Cuba ?? China ?? or ?????
> why do you hate religion ? our USA was founded by some very religious people, why do you hate guns and their owners ? GUNS is what made us the very free country we are today...., BUT !! due to people like you we are slowly losing our freedoms and GOD given liberties



Actually, the founders were mostly DEISTS.  Their tiny 18th century  minds couldn't conceive of a world without a Sky Pixie (because they had no idea how science worked) but they didn't go around praising the Cosmic Jewish Zombie.  

Yeah, the guns and religion have made us the country we are today. 

We are the retards of the industrialized world, lagging behind them in every statistic that counts.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, I don't even visit the US anymore, not a safe place to be. More people die by gunshot in the US every year than in all of Iraq and Afghanistan put together and multiplied by about 50. So it's safer to vacation in Afghanistan than it is to go to the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid post.  Was your cancelled vacation plan to go to south central LA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my cousin lives not far from the Sandy Hook shooting. Too scary. She understands.
Click to expand...


I raised my kids up in the next town, Brookfield.  If you're seriously not going to vacation in the US because of crime in Northern Fairfield County then you're not increasing the having a clue quotient of your posts.

So where do you vacation where the chance of a crime happening is actually zero?  This should be good...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they will.
> 
> The NRA has played its last threat card.  Next school shooting, these idiots totally own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is about as good for Children as NAMBLA.
Click to expand...


Nambla teaches safety, personal responsibility to take care of oneself and one's family and personal accountability that you are responsible for what you do with a weapon in every way at all times?

Wow, who knew?  I thought they were a bunch of child molesters...


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid post.  Was your cancelled vacation plan to go to south central LA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my cousin lives not far from the Sandy Hook shooting. Too scary. She understands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I raised my kids up in the next town, Brookfield.  If you're seriously not going to vacation in the US because of crime in Northern Fairfield County then you're not increasing the having a clue quotient of your posts.
> 
> So where do you vacation where the chance of a crime happening is actually zero?  This should be good...
Click to expand...


Nothing will ever be zero chance, geez, you're stupid. 

But I wouldn't go to Mexico either, it's even more dangerous. Nothing personal. Clean up your act and I'll reconsider.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, and good luck with it
> 
> What will not change is the laws proposed, as the lush Biden said, will not stop the next school shooting you are so much wanting to see happen.
> 
> Obama and the leftist a-holes including Bloomberg et al, can get creamed again.
> 
> I'm down with that
> 
> BTW- I sent the NRA some more $$$ this week. They need our support, why don't you consider a small donation.
> 
> It's for the children
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is about as good for Children as NAMBLA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nambla teaches safety, personal responsibility to take care of oneself and one's family and personal accountability that you are responsible for what you do with a weapon in every way at all times?
> 
> Wow, who knew?  I thought they were a bunch of child molesters...
Click to expand...


The NRA are a bunch of child killers..


----------



## zeke

jon_berzerk said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is gonna be so easy for the Dems to enact other gun control*.
> 
> is it
> 
> four dem council member face re call election
> 
> October 17, 2013
> 
> EXETER, RI  We the People of Exeter is announcing the grassroots effort to seek redress of our concerns has been successful. The Exeter Board of Canvassers has certified the recall of four town councilors initiated by the hard working Exeter citizens, who were ignored and dismissed, by those councilors while trying to protect their constitutional rights.
> 
> If these four councilors had spent as much time talking to the citizens of Exeter as they have spent talking to the press the past few weeks, we would not be here, said petitioner Joseph St. Lawrence.
> 
> While firearms licensing was the subject of the underlying debate, this is not, as some members of the council falsely claim, merely a firearms issue. First, they refused to listen to constructive criticism regarding the rights of the citizens by limiting comment and frustrating Exeter residents who were unable to speak on the issue. Now, they dismiss petitions from 600 citizens as petty. This is just the arrogant and unresponsive attitude that galvanized this recall.
> 
> Rhode Island Firearm Owners' League - Exeter Recall
> 
> recall election will take place in the first half of December 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA
> 
> Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The first recall election in Colorado's history on Tuesday marked a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association and gun rights activists, with the ouster of two Democrats -- Senate President John Morse (Colorado Springs) and state Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo). The two lawmakers were the target of separate recall fights over their support for stricter gun laws earlier this year.
> 
> "The highest rank in a democracy is citizen, not senate president," Morse said in his concession speech, as his supporters solemnly watched, some shedding tears.
> 
> What originally began as local political fallout over the Democratic-controlled legislature's comprehensive gun control package quickly escalated into a national referendum on gun policy. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> absolutlely
> 
> now Colorado is staging another recall
> 
> When a pair of Colorado lawmakers were recalled last month in a referendum on gun control, opponents had this to console them: At least, they said, the twin defeats did not alter the balance of power in Denver, the state capital.
> 
> Now gun rights advocates are looking to change that.
> 
> Organizers have received official go-ahead to start gathering signatures in a bid to oust state Sen. Evie Hudak, a Democrat from the Denver suburb of Westminister, who was the target of a failed recall petition drive earlier this year. The group, certified by Colorado's secretary of State, has until Dec. 3 to collect just over 18,900 signatures to force a vote.
> 
> The stakes: control of the state Senate, which Democrats hold by a tenuous 18-17 edge.
> 
> Hudak, who is in her second term, was one of four lawmakers originally targeted after the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a series of sweeping gun controls in response to mass shootings last year in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. The measures, signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, include a requirement for universal background checks and a limit on ammunition magazines like the one used in the July 2012 theater shootings in Aurora, another suburb of Denver.
> 
> Stakes grow in new Colorado gun control recall effort - latimes.com
Click to expand...



All the Dems need is to pick up a few seats in the House next year, a few in the following elections. Another major killing spree, a radical group of Dems who are going to Washington to do the "will of their constituents". Wait for the government funding bill to expire and the debt ceiling to expire and then the fun begins.

No debts paid, no running government UNLESS more gun control is put in place.

It would be so cool to see the Rethgus go fucking bat shit crazy.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is about as good for Children as NAMBLA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nambla teaches safety, personal responsibility to take care of oneself and one's family and personal accountability that you are responsible for what you do with a weapon in every way at all times?
> 
> Wow, who knew?  I thought they were a bunch of child molesters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA are a bunch of child killers..
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Adam Lanza... Joker Holmes...Jared Loughner...

All brought to you by the NRA.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my cousin lives not far from the Sandy Hook shooting. Too scary. She understands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I raised my kids up in the next town, Brookfield.  If you're seriously not going to vacation in the US because of crime in Northern Fairfield County then you're not increasing the having a clue quotient of your posts.
> 
> So where do you vacation where the chance of a crime happening is actually zero?  This should be good...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing will ever be zero chance, geez, you're stupid.
> 
> But I wouldn't go to Mexico either, it's even more dangerous. Nothing personal. Clean up your act and I'll reconsider.
Click to expand...


Actually you are, you just showed that.  I asked you where you were going to vacation in the US, and you picked Northern Fairfield county less than 10 miles from where I lived for years, one of the safest areas in the country.  Then as you said, "nothing will be zero."

Your point is obviously political, not safety which is why I'm mocking you.  And you keep showing that.  Sandy Hook was in the news, so you picked that having no idea of what you're talking about.  Actually not having made up a cousin who lives near Newtown would have been a better move because if you did they would have told you how safe that area is.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Adam Lanza... Joker Holmes...Jared Loughner...
> 
> All brought to you by the NRA.



NRA: 100,000 new members after Sandy Hook shooting - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com

NRA: 100,000 new members after Sandy Hook shooting

Read more: NRA: 100,000 new members after Sandy Hook shooting - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com

By KATIE GLUECK | 1/10/13 9:35 AM EST
The National Rifle Association has gained more than 100,000 new members in the past 18 days, the organization told POLITICOs Playbook on Thursday.

The number of paid new members jumped from 4.1 million to 4.2 million during that time.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is about as good for Children as NAMBLA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nambla teaches safety, personal responsibility to take care of oneself and one's family and personal accountability that you are responsible for what you do with a weapon in every way at all times?
> 
> Wow, who knew?  I thought they were a bunch of child molesters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA are a bunch of child killers..
Click to expand...


I am curious why liberals like making up having been in the military.  You obviously have never been around guns.  You've never seen one except in a holster on a cop's belt, which made you feel secure that government had guns.

I know it started with Kerry, that somehow liberals in the military bolster your attitudes that the military supports your efforts to undermine them and get them killed with stupid engagement rules and by your supporting our enemies.  But at this point it's pretty clear it's meaningless.  Liberals don't care who says liberalism and no one else believes that what you are saying is more relevant because you made up having been in the military.


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Adam Lanza... Joker Holmes...Jared Loughner...
> 
> All brought to you by the NRA.



Columbine ... Virginia Tech ... Aurora ... Sandy Hook ... the Washington Navy Yard ...

All brought to you by the DNC.


----------



## petro

Simplistic Idiot quote of the week...

"The NRA are a bunch of child killers.."

It's always the gun with you and never personal responsibility or the warped society that has created youth with no morals, no discipline, and a lack of respect for elders and society. Which in turn makes them sociopaths as adults.
From Paul Harvey, written in 1965...
If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions &#8212; just let those run wild, until before you knew it, you&#8217;d have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

This is what a permissive and "progressive" society have brought us.


----------



## jon_berzerk

zeke said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA
> 
> Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The first recall election in Colorado's history on Tuesday marked a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association and gun rights activists, with the ouster of two Democrats -- Senate President John Morse (Colorado Springs) and state Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo). The two lawmakers were the target of separate recall fights over their support for stricter gun laws earlier this year.
> 
> "The highest rank in a democracy is citizen, not senate president," Morse said in his concession speech, as his supporters solemnly watched, some shedding tears.
> 
> What originally began as local political fallout over the Democratic-controlled legislature's comprehensive gun control package quickly escalated into a national referendum on gun policy. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> absolutlely
> 
> now Colorado is staging another recall
> 
> When a pair of Colorado lawmakers were recalled last month in a referendum on gun control, opponents had this to console them: At least, they said, the twin defeats did not alter the balance of power in Denver, the state capital.
> 
> Now gun rights advocates are looking to change that.
> 
> Organizers have received official go-ahead to start gathering signatures in a bid to oust state Sen. Evie Hudak, a Democrat from the Denver suburb of Westminister, who was the target of a failed recall petition drive earlier this year. The group, certified by Colorado's secretary of State, has until Dec. 3 to collect just over 18,900 signatures to force a vote.
> 
> The stakes: control of the state Senate, which Democrats hold by a tenuous 18-17 edge.
> 
> Hudak, who is in her second term, was one of four lawmakers originally targeted after the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed a series of sweeping gun controls in response to mass shootings last year in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn. The measures, signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, include a requirement for universal background checks and a limit on ammunition magazines like the one used in the July 2012 theater shootings in Aurora, another suburb of Denver.
> 
> Stakes grow in new Colorado gun control recall effort - latimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All the Dems need is to pick up a few seats in the House next year, a few in the following elections. Another major killing spree, a radical group of Dems who are going to Washington to do the "will of their constituents". Wait for the government funding bill to expire and the debt ceiling to expire and then the fun begins.
> 
> No debts paid, no running government UNLESS more gun control is put in place.
> 
> It would be so cool to see the Rethgus go fucking bat shit crazy.
Click to expand...


your jowls are soaking wet with slobber   in the hopes of 

another massacre most likely in a *gun free zone *

currently dems across the country are getting removed 

through re call elections precisely for toting more gun control


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I raised my kids up in the next town, Brookfield.  If you're seriously not going to vacation in the US because of crime in Northern Fairfield County then you're not increasing the having a clue quotient of your posts.
> 
> So where do you vacation where the chance of a crime happening is actually zero?  This should be good...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will ever be zero chance, geez, you're stupid.
> 
> But I wouldn't go to Mexico either, it's even more dangerous. Nothing personal. Clean up your act and I'll reconsider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you are, you just showed that.  I asked you where you were going to vacation in the US, and you picked Northern Fairfield county less than 10 miles from where I lived for years, one of the safest areas in the country.  Then as you said, "nothing will be zero."
> 
> Your point is obviously political, not safety which is why I'm mocking you.  And you keep showing that.  Sandy Hook was in the news, so you picked that having no idea of what you're talking about.  Actually not having made up a cousin who lives near Newtown would have been a better move because if you did they would have told you how safe that area is.
Click to expand...


Your point is obviously delusionary as you think you live in a safe country. Poor you. You sound like you suffer from PTSD. Get some help.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing will ever be zero chance, geez, you're stupid.
> 
> But I wouldn't go to Mexico either, it's even more dangerous. Nothing personal. Clean up your act and I'll reconsider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are, you just showed that.  I asked you where you were going to vacation in the US, and you picked Northern Fairfield county less than 10 miles from where I lived for years, one of the safest areas in the country.  Then as you said, "nothing will be zero."
> 
> Your point is obviously political, not safety which is why I'm mocking you.  And you keep showing that.  Sandy Hook was in the news, so you picked that having no idea of what you're talking about.  Actually not having made up a cousin who lives near Newtown would have been a better move because if you did they would have told you how safe that area is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is obviously delusionary as you think you live in a safe country. Poor you. You sound like you suffer from PTSD. Get some help.
Click to expand...


Your point is obviously delusionary as you live in a delusion.   The US is a big, diverse country.  You're an International leftist who sees this as a cheap political trick for cheap political points.   Where you screwed up is you picked the biggest name in the news recently to fabricate your point around, and it happens to be one of the safest areas in the country.  I happened to live right by there for many years, but if you'd checked with any knowledgeable American on that one before you made up your point they'd have told you to pick somewhere else.

Then when I asked where you were going on vacation that is 100% safe, you walked right into the trap and said nowhere is.  I've spent a lot of time working in Europe, so I already knew international leftists are no different than American leftists, it was easy pickings.

BTW, I do like your plan to vacation somewhere else.  We have enough of you people over here already.


----------



## Pogo

petro said:


> Simplistic Idiot quote of the week...
> 
> "The NRA are a bunch of child killers.."
> 
> It's always the gun with you and never personal responsibility or the warped society that has created youth with no morals, no discipline, and a lack of respect for elders and society. Which in turn makes them sociopaths as adults.
> From Paul Harvey, written in 1965...
> If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions  just let those run wild, until before you knew it, youd have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
> 
> This is what a permissive and "progressive" society have brought us.



So you don't like Liberty.  Oh well.

Here's another, far more pertinent part of that article (and btw your quote version is from 1996):

>> If I were the devil, I'd soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings, I'd have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. <<

As for "undisciplined emotions" -- just have a look around this forum, especially when any gun topic comes up.  One guy in Carolina put up a thread announcing a gun show here and when I said thanks but no thanks he demanded "get your ass out of my fucking state right fucking now", so yeah tell me about undisciplined emotions...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> when I said thanks but no thanks he demanded "get your ass out of my fucking state right fucking now", so yeah tell me about undisciplined emotions...



And that bothers you ... when it's not a liberal saying it ...

You'll have credibility for this only when you say it to someone who you don't disagree with.  In the mean time, it's the mantra of every liberal, do as I say, not as I do ...

It's a perk I have not belonging to either of you pathetic political parties.  When Republicans are for banning abortion, using the military for non-defense purposes and that sort of thing, I jump right in and go for them, I do that all the time, particularly on those two topics.  If you ever disagree with your side, we know only by your silence on the matter.


----------



## petro

Pogo said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simplistic Idiot quote of the week...
> 
> "The NRA are a bunch of child killers.."
> 
> It's always the gun with you and never personal responsibility or the warped society that has created youth with no morals, no discipline, and a lack of respect for elders and society. Which in turn makes them sociopaths as adults.
> From Paul Harvey, written in 1965...
> If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions  just let those run wild, until before you knew it, youd have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
> 
> This is what a permissive and "progressive" society have brought us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't like Liberty.  Oh well.
> 
> Here's another, far more pertinent part of that article (and btw your quote version is from 1996):
> 
> >> If I were the devil, I'd soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings, I'd have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. <<
> 
> As for "undisciplined emotions" -- just have a look around this forum, especially when any gun topic comes up.  One guy in Carolina put up a thread announcing a gun show here and when I said thanks but no thanks he demanded "get your ass out of my fucking state right fucking now", so yeah tell me about undisciplined emotions...
Click to expand...


I would like to know how raising youth with discipline is against Liberty. I read the entire Paul Harvey article and as much as I didn't care for the Religious aspect of it, there were some pretty good insights and predictions for some 48 years ago. The quote you added further shows what insight he had as both parties and the media fan the flames. You fell for one side of it.
Congratulations...your indoctrination is complete.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> when I said thanks but no thanks he demanded "get your ass out of my fucking state right fucking now", so yeah tell me about undisciplined emotions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that bothers you ... when it's not a liberal saying it ...
Click to expand...


Don't presume to tell me "what bothers me".  Nor did I indicate that.  It was an illustration of undisciplined emotion.  It's not even a political comment.  Why do you need to make shit up?



kaz said:


> You'll have credibility for this only when you say it to someone who you don't disagree with.  In the mean time, it's the mantra of every liberal, do as I say, not as I do ...



Uhh... I don't need your permission for credibility.  Get over yourself.



kaz said:


> It's a perk I have not belonging to either of you pathetic political parties.  When Republicans are for banning abortion, using the military for non-defense purposes and that sort of thing, I jump right in and go for them, I do that all the time, particularly on those two topics.  If you ever disagree with your side, we know only by your silence on the matter.



What gives you the idea I'm with a political party?  How do you find a way to inject this into the comment at all?  Again, why do you make shit up?

Rhetorically masturbate much?


----------



## Pogo

petro said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simplistic Idiot quote of the week...
> 
> "The NRA are a bunch of child killers.."
> 
> It's always the gun with you and never personal responsibility or the warped society that has created youth with no morals, no discipline, and a lack of respect for elders and society. Which in turn makes them sociopaths as adults.
> From Paul Harvey, written in 1965...
> If I were the devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions  just let those run wild, until before you knew it, youd have to have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.
> 
> This is what a permissive and "progressive" society have brought us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't like Liberty.  Oh well.
> 
> Here's another, far more pertinent part of that article (and btw your quote version is from 1996):
> 
> >> If I were the devil, I'd soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves until each, in its turn, was consumed.  And with promises of higher ratings, I'd have mesmerizing media fanning the flames. <<
> 
> As for "undisciplined emotions" -- just have a look around this forum, especially when any gun topic comes up.  One guy in Carolina put up a thread announcing a gun show here and when I said thanks but no thanks he demanded "get your ass out of my fucking state right fucking now", so yeah tell me about undisciplined emotions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to know how raising youth with discipline is against Liberty. I read the entire Paul Harvey article and as much as I didn't care for the Religious aspect of it, there were some pretty good insights and predictions for some 48 years ago. The quote you added further shows what insight he had as both parties and the media fan the flames. You fell for one side of it.
> Congratulations...your indoctrination is complete.
Click to expand...


"Liberty" there is contrasted with your "permissive and progressive".  It was "permissive and progressive" philosophy that created this country: the Liberty to be permitted to say what one wants, to follow the religion one chooses.  That was progress over the constraints of the church-state.  The idea was leaving those choices to We the People.  It's a double-edged sword.

My choice of the media quote was pointedly on the topic.  And yes I share your concerns about Harvey's religious fallacies, so mind your assumptions.


----------



## 1776

Law abiding gun owners = white middle class......so liberals want to take their guns.

Criminals with guns = blacks, Hispanics and white trash....so liberals don't intend to attack their voting base.


----------



## MonaGonna

How can any normal person be against heavily regulating weapons? Like the NRA prez who thinks that you combat gun violence with more guns. He's obviously insane. No?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> How can any normal person be against heavily regulating weapons? Like the NRA prez who thinks that you combat gun violence with more guns. He's obviously insane. No?



I hear ya.  When someone points a gun at you, stick a daisy in the barrel.  Problem solved.  

Try reading the op and commenting on the actual question rather than pontificating on how life works in your fairy land.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> What gives you the idea I'm with a political party?



Your posts


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can any normal person be against heavily regulating weapons? Like the NRA prez who thinks that you combat gun violence with more guns. He's obviously insane. No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya.  When someone points a gun at you, stick a daisy in the barrel.  Problem solved.
> 
> Try reading the op and commenting on the actual question rather than pontificating on how life works in your fairy land.
Click to expand...


Keeping guns from criminals? Try regulating them a lot better. Don't let anyone just walk in and buy guns for cartels and whatnot. Get a proper grip on the industry. NORMAL PEOPLE don't need assault weapons either.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can any normal person be against heavily regulating weapons? Like the NRA prez who thinks that you combat gun violence with more guns. He's obviously insane. No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya.  When someone points a gun at you, stick a daisy in the barrel.  Problem solved.
> 
> Try reading the op and commenting on the actual question rather than pontificating on how life works in your fairy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals? Try regulating them a lot better. Don't let anyone just walk in and buy guns for cartels and whatnot. Get a proper grip on the industry. NORMAL PEOPLE don't need assault weapons either.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment specifically protects weapons that are of use in use or useful to the military. At least try to be original.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya.  When someone points a gun at you, stick a daisy in the barrel.  Problem solved.
> 
> Try reading the op and commenting on the actual question rather than pontificating on how life works in your fairy land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals? Try regulating them a lot better. Don't let anyone just walk in and buy guns for cartels and whatnot. Get a proper grip on the industry. NORMAL PEOPLE don't need assault weapons either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment specifically protects weapons that are of use in use or useful to the military. At least try to be original.
Click to expand...


Gee, I didn't realize that your constitution was written in stone. Try evolving. That's what living organisms do, just like the constitution has undergone some changes since it was first written. The US has a problem with gun violence, try to come up with an original idea to counter it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals? Try regulating them a lot better. Don't let anyone just walk in and buy guns for cartels and whatnot. Get a proper grip on the industry. NORMAL PEOPLE don't need assault weapons either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment specifically protects weapons that are of use in use or useful to the military. At least try to be original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I didn't realize that your constitution was written in stone. Try evolving. That's what living organisms do, just like the constitution has undergone some changes since it was first written. The US has a problem with gun violence, try to come up with an original idea to counter it.
Click to expand...


A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent is not a problem. Do the math. As for overall violence Germany France Great Britain and Canada all have more violence then the US.

The Courts have ruled that the second is an individual right and that military type weapons are protected by the 2nd, you don't like it? get an amendment pasted Congress and approved by 37 States.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment specifically protects weapons that are of use in use or useful to the military. At least try to be original.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I didn't realize that your constitution was written in stone. Try evolving. That's what living organisms do, just like the constitution has undergone some changes since it was first written. The US has a problem with gun violence, try to come up with an original idea to counter it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent is not a problem. Do the math. As for overall violence Germany France Great Britain and Canada all have more violence then the US.
> 
> The Courts have ruled that the second is an individual right and that military type weapons are protected by the 2nd, you don't like it? get an amendment pasted Congress and approved by 37 States.
Click to expand...


Just curious: are you drunk right now?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I didn't realize that your constitution was written in stone. Try evolving. That's what living organisms do, just like the constitution has undergone some changes since it was first written. The US has a problem with gun violence, try to come up with an original idea to counter it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent is not a problem. Do the math. As for overall violence Germany France Great Britain and Canada all have more violence then the US.
> 
> The Courts have ruled that the second is an individual right and that military type weapons are protected by the 2nd, you don't like it? get an amendment pasted Congress and approved by 37 States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious: are you drunk right now?
Click to expand...


Just curious are you retarded? 11000 murders divided into 300 million firearms or 316 million people comes out to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent, care to do the math?

Already posted links toi the fact that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more violent crimes then the US, want me to do it again cause you are retarded?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

3.6 per 100000 is the rate of firearm murders in the USA. Care to break that down to a percent?

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As to violent crimes.

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

and population.

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When one compares population to recorded violent crime one finds that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more per capita violence then the US and Italy has the same rate.


----------



## NoNukes

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment specifically protects weapons that are of use in use or useful to the military. At least try to be original.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I didn't realize that your constitution was written in stone. Try evolving. That's what living organisms do, just like the constitution has undergone some changes since it was first written. The US has a problem with gun violence, try to come up with an original idea to counter it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent is not a problem. Do the math. As for overall violence Germany France Great Britain and Canada all have more violence then the US.
> 
> The Courts have ruled that the second is an individual right and that military type weapons are protected by the 2nd, you don't like it? get an amendment pasted Congress and approved by 37 States.
Click to expand...


Where the fuck do you get this? More violence in these countries, but people do not need to be armed ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NoNukes said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I didn't realize that your constitution was written in stone. Try evolving. That's what living organisms do, just like the constitution has undergone some changes since it was first written. The US has a problem with gun violence, try to come up with an original idea to counter it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent is not a problem. Do the math. As for overall violence Germany France Great Britain and Canada all have more violence then the US.
> 
> The Courts have ruled that the second is an individual right and that military type weapons are protected by the 2nd, you don't like it? get an amendment pasted Congress and approved by 37 States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where the fuck do you get this? More violence in these countries, but people do not need to be armed ?
Click to expand...


Check the links do the math. I already did it earlier in this thread.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> 3.6 per 100000 is the rate of firearm murders in the USA. Care to break that down to a percent?
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> and population.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When one compares population to recorded violent crime one finds that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more per capita violence then the US and Italy has the same rate.



1st link: US 10.3 (homocides per 100,000), UK 0.25, Canada 2.38, France 3.01, Germany 1.24

2nd link: Crime stats, US 11,800,000; UK 6,500,000; Germany 6,500,000; Canada 2,500,000

3rd link population in millions: US 316; Ger 80; Fra 65; Can 35.

Conclusion: US is the worst of all countries mentioned. By far.


----------



## petro

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent is not a problem. Do the math. As for overall violence Germany France Great Britain and Canada all have more violence then the US.
> 
> The Courts have ruled that the second is an individual right and that military type weapons are protected by the 2nd, you don't like it? get an amendment pasted Congress and approved by 37 States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious: are you drunk right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just curious are you retarded? 11000 murders divided into 300 million firearms or 316 million people comes out to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent, care to do the math?
> 
> Already posted links toi the fact that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more violent crimes then the US, want me to do it again cause you are retarded?
Click to expand...


People are most likely to die at the hands of some idiot texting while driving than ever being the victim in a shooting.
I just love when idiots from other nations tell us how unsafe America is. Been watching was too much of the crap put out by what the networks call news. Sensationalism and ratings have put out the myth that America is a shooting gallery.


----------



## Geaux4it

STUDY: Using Guns for Defense Leads to Fewer Injuries - US News and World Report

Just a month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, President Obama called for an assessment of the existing research on gun violence and recommendations for more studies. Now, that assessment is out, and it delves deeply into what research shows us about why gun violence happens in this country &#8211; and also into how well the defensive use of guns work.

Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats).


----------



## AnonymousMD

The solution isn't to make getting a gun more difficult (though, that and gun buy-backs are effective to an extent), it's to change America's attitude towards guns. Everyone in Switzerland owns a gun, yet they don't have problems like we do. Why? Because they have different cultural values than us Americans. Video games, violent action film, ect, make shooting a gun seem completely fine--and even cool. Obviously changing this attitude will not happen overnight, and will not be completely effective until other problems such as the education and income gaps (between Blacks and Whites) is decreased. Gun violence is not an isolated issue, it is caused by multiple factors.


----------



## Geaux4it

AnonymousMD said:


> The solution isn't to make getting a gun more difficult (though, that and gun buy-backs are effective to an extent), it's to change America's attitude towards guns. Everyone in Switzerland owns a gun, yet they don't have problems like we do. Why? Because they have different cultural values than us Americans. Video games, violent action film, ect, make shooting a gun seem completely fine--and even cool. Obviously changing this attitude will not happen overnight, and will not be completely effective until other problems such as the education and income gaps (between Blacks and Whites) is decreased. Gun violence is not an isolated issue, it is caused by multiple factors.



Switzerland also does not have open borders and social malcontents and miscreants.

-Geaux

Information in the post in part, comes from the 'Firing Line'

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.

So much for the hypothesis that more privately owned guns cause more murders.

Now, before you start throwing out how Japan, Australia, UK, Canada where guns are banned have rankings more favorable than the USA in homicide rates, so do Switzerland and Finland which have high rates of private ownership. In fact, Switzerland's homicide rate ranks 42% lower than the UK's. And of course, the gun control movement never mentions Mexico, Brazil and South Africa where private ownership is very difficult and which have homicide rates far above those of the USA.

While the hypothesis that high gun ownership rates cause a decrease in homicide is still being debated, the inverse that high gun ownership causes high homicide rates- is most certainly dead in the water.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can any normal person be against heavily regulating weapons? Like the NRA prez who thinks that you combat gun violence with more guns. He's obviously insane. No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya.  When someone points a gun at you, stick a daisy in the barrel.  Problem solved.
> 
> Try reading the op and commenting on the actual question rather than pontificating on how life works in your fairy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals? Try regulating them a lot better. Don't let anyone just walk in and buy guns for cartels and whatnot. Get a proper grip on the industry. NORMAL PEOPLE don't need assault weapons either.
Click to expand...


Here's an idea, try reading the op and answering the question.  This is the most basic, obvious position of the American left that the op addresses.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6 per 100000 is the rate of firearm murders in the USA. Care to break that down to a percent?
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> and population.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When one compares population to recorded violent crime one finds that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more per capita violence then the US and Italy has the same rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st link: US 10.3 (homocides per 100,000), UK 0.25, Canada 2.38, France 3.01, Germany 1.24
> 
> 2nd link: Crime stats, US 11,800,000; UK 6,500,000; Germany 6,500,000; Canada 2,500,000
> 
> 3rd link population in millions: US 316; Ger 80; Fra 65; Can 35.
> 
> Conclusion: US is the worst of all countries mentioned. By far.
Click to expand...


I find it so much more convincing when an international leftist says all we have to do is add more gun laws and then you just assume that will fix the problem than when an American leftists does.  The US is larger and more diverse than those countries, assuming the truth of your position is preventing you from grasping the situation.  Your cliche of American hunters and outdoorsman being the typical gun owner is true, however, almost none of the murders are happening there.  Murders are happening by criminals who don't care what the gun laws are which is ...

... addressed in the op.  What you're not answering.

BTW, the American left fights to make sure anyone in Mexico can walk across our border.  They don't think that allows criminals, drugs or ... guns ... to come in the same way.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can any normal person be against heavily regulating weapons? Like the NRA prez who thinks that you combat gun violence with more guns. He's obviously insane. No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear ya.  When someone points a gun at you, stick a daisy in the barrel.  Problem solved.
> 
> Try reading the op and commenting on the actual question rather than pontificating on how life works in your fairy land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals? Try regulating them a lot better. Don't let anyone just walk in and buy guns for cartels and whatnot. Get a proper grip on the industry. NORMAL PEOPLE don't need assault weapons either.
Click to expand...


Only ones buying guns for the cartel are Odummer and Holder

-Geaux


----------



## 1776

Well idiot....

You are comparing the US with mostly WHITE countries, smaller countries in population. Their numbers of minorities is dwarfed by the number of minorities in the USA.

Blacks and Hispanics are the more crime prone groups in the USA, so common sense says the US with millions more blacks and Hispanics will be more violent than little ole England.

I don't recall seeing Canada along the Mexican border, please tell. Canada isn't being invaded by poor and violent Hispanics coming across the border to take back their "ancient land." Canada gets invaded by Asians which are typically less violent than Hispanics. 

So idiot....going around comparing the US, with blacks and Hispanics and where the RAP/HIP-HOP culture comes from, to smaller countries with less people in general and less minority groups overall....shows you are dumb as hell.



MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6 per 100000 is the rate of firearm murders in the USA. Care to break that down to a percent?
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> and population.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When one compares population to recorded violent crime one finds that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more per capita violence then the US and Italy has the same rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st link: US 10.3 (homocides per 100,000), UK 0.25, Canada 2.38, France 3.01, Germany 1.24
> 
> 2nd link: Crime stats, US 11,800,000; UK 6,500,000; Germany 6,500,000; Canada 2,500,000
> 
> 3rd link population in millions: US 316; Ger 80; Fra 65; Can 35.
> 
> Conclusion: US is the worst of all countries mentioned. By far.
Click to expand...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6 per 100000 is the rate of firearm murders in the USA. Care to break that down to a percent?
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> and population.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When one compares population to recorded violent crime one finds that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more per capita violence then the US and Italy has the same rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st link: US 10.3 (homocides per 100,000), UK 0.25, Canada 2.38, France 3.01, Germany 1.24
> 
> 2nd link: Crime stats, US 11,800,000; UK 6,500,000; Germany 6,500,000; Canada 2,500,000
> 
> 3rd link population in millions: US 316; Ger 80; Fra 65; Can 35.
> 
> Conclusion: US is the worst of all countries mentioned. By far.
Click to expand...


You failed to do the math. As for US and homicides you are a liar it is 4.7 per 100000. The violence numbers are not per population, if one does the math then one finds that the violence in Germany, France, Canada and Great Britain exceeds the USA by a large margin.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.6 per 100000 is the rate of firearm murders in the USA. Care to break that down to a percent?
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As to violent crimes.
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> and population.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When one compares population to recorded violent crime one finds that Germany, France, Great Britain and Canada have more per capita violence then the US and Italy has the same rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st link: US 10.3 (homocides per 100,000), UK 0.25, Canada 2.38, France 3.01, Germany 1.24
> 
> 2nd link: Crime stats, US 11,800,000; UK 6,500,000; Germany 6,500,000; Canada 2,500,000
> 
> 3rd link population in millions: US 316; Ger 80; Fra 65; Can 35.
> 
> Conclusion: US is the worst of all countries mentioned. By far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed to do the math. As for US and homicides you are a liar it is 4.7 per 100000. The violence numbers are not per population, if one does the math then one finds that the violence in Germany, France, Canada and Great Britain exceeds the USA by a large margin.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're drunk again. Violence is still much more likely to happen in the US, regardless of population. And it's not 4.7, retard. Put the bottle down.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st link: US 10.3 (homocides per 100,000), UK 0.25, Canada 2.38, France 3.01, Germany 1.24
> 
> 2nd link: Crime stats, US 11,800,000; UK 6,500,000; Germany 6,500,000; Canada 2,500,000
> 
> 3rd link population in millions: US 316; Ger 80; Fra 65; Can 35.
> 
> Conclusion: US is the worst of all countries mentioned. By far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to do the math. As for US and homicides you are a liar it is 4.7 per 100000. The violence numbers are not per population, if one does the math then one finds that the violence in Germany, France, Canada and Great Britain exceeds the USA by a large margin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you're drunk again. Violence is still much more likely to happen in the US, regardless of population. And it's not 4.7, retard. Put the bottle down.
Click to expand...


Shall I do the math for you? You must be a idiot?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

For the slow and stupid.

the USA has 3 percent violent crime by population

The United Kingdom has 10 percent by population

Germany has 7 percent by population

France has 5 percent by population.

Canada has 7 percent by population.

The murder rate in the US is 4.7 per 100000 as established by the FBI. The link in question shows that 3.6 of those are by firearms.

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MonaGonna

Buddy, look for an AA meeting soon.

"U.S. Has More Guns &#8211; And Gun Deaths &#8211; Than Any Other Country, Study Finds"
U.S. Has More Guns ? And Gun Deaths ? Than Any Other Country, Study Finds - ABC News


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> Buddy, look for an AA meeting soon.
> 
> "U.S. Has More Guns  And Gun Deaths  Than Any Other Country, Study Finds"
> U.S. Has More Guns ? And Gun Deaths ? Than Any Other Country, Study Finds - ABC News



We are not arguing gun deaths we are arguing overall violence. And that is not the US. I provided the facts supported by your buddy the UN.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, look for an AA meeting soon.
> 
> "U.S. Has More Guns  And Gun Deaths  Than Any Other Country, Study Finds"
> U.S. Has More Guns ? And Gun Deaths ? Than Any Other Country, Study Finds - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not arguing gun deaths we are arguing overall violence. And that is not the US. I provided the facts supported by your buddy the UN.
Click to expand...


Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, look for an AA meeting soon.
> 
> "U.S. Has More Guns  And Gun Deaths  Than Any Other Country, Study Finds"
> U.S. Has More Guns ? And Gun Deaths ? Than Any Other Country, Study Finds - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not arguing gun deaths we are arguing overall violence. And that is not the US. I provided the facts supported by your buddy the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.
Click to expand...


In other words you are wrong and now have to find away to save face, I get it really I do.

As for the thread OP you have not answered that question at all.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not arguing gun deaths we are arguing overall violence. And that is not the US. I provided the facts supported by your buddy the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you are wrong and now have to find away to save face, I get it really I do.
> 
> As for the thread OP you have not answered that question at all.
Click to expand...


Alcoholic logic. Look Homer, your first link was about gun deaths. You're second link was irrelevant about overall crime when it relates to gun deaths. And your 3rd link was population, which shows that with a higher gun death rate and a much higher population, overall gun deaths will be a lot higher then anyone else as well. Shit man, get some help.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you are wrong and now have to find away to save face, I get it really I do.
> 
> As for the thread OP you have not answered that question at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alcoholic logic. Look Homer, your first link was about gun deaths. You're second link was irrelevant about overall crime when it relates to gun deaths. And your 3rd link was population, which shows that with a higher gun death rate and a much higher population, overall gun deaths will be a lot higher then anyone else as well. Shit man, get some help.
Click to expand...


The one that is drunk is you. I showed that overall violence is higher among those supposed liberal utopia gun free States. Higher by a LOT.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> For the slow and stupid.
> 
> the USA has 3 percent violent crime by population
> 
> The United Kingdom has 10 percent by population
> 
> Germany has 7 percent by population
> 
> France has 5 percent by population.
> 
> Canada has 7 percent by population.
> 
> The murder rate in the US is 4.7 per 100000 as established by the FBI. The link in question shows that 3.6 of those are by firearms.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, look for an AA meeting soon.
> 
> "U.S. Has More Guns  And Gun Deaths  Than Any Other Country, Study Finds"
> U.S. Has More Guns ? And Gun Deaths ? Than Any Other Country, Study Finds - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not arguing gun deaths we are arguing overall violence. And that is not the US. I provided the facts supported by your buddy the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.
Click to expand...


Since you haven't even tried to answer the question in the op, who are you to be lecturing anyone on the thread?


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.



Again, the probelm with these numbers is that they are apples to oranges comparison. 

Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog



> First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 peoplethe 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports defines a violent crime as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
> 
> The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes.
> 
> When you look at how this changes the meaning of violent crime, it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. Youre simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.
> 
> But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, possession of an article with a blade or point, and causing public fear, alarm, or distress. And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not arguing gun deaths we are arguing overall violence. And that is not the US. I provided the facts supported by your buddy the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you haven't even tried to answer the question in the op, who are you to be lecturing anyone on the thread?
Click to expand...


I did, you just can't read very well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the probelm with these numbers is that they are apples to oranges comparison.
> 
> Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 peoplethe 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports defines a violent crime as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
> 
> The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes.
> 
> When you look at how this changes the meaning of violent crime, it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. Youre simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.
> 
> But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, possession of an article with a blade or point, and causing public fear, alarm, or distress. And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You mean like how the British do not report a murder unless someone is convicted? According to you that is irrelevant. As for your claim to bad these are UN Figures, are you now admitting the UN does not know what they are talking about?

As I recall you were in the threads on health care and pooh poohed the fact that different countries report births widely different when claiming the US death of a new born is compared.

Even the British admit their violence has sky rocketed with the elimination of private ownership of firearms, has has Australia and other nations.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

When in everyone was mandated to have a gun in Georgia, crime dropped 87%!


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must be lost from all the drinking. This thread is called:"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?". Make sure you call a taxi to get home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you haven't even tried to answer the question in the op, who are you to be lecturing anyone on the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, you just can't read very well.
Click to expand...


You answered the title question, which is just a brief version of it.  Which is why your answer was so shallow, the question in the op is the one you're supposed to answer.  In fact, your answer demonstrated the point of the op question.  Do you know what a "title" is?


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the slow and stupid.
> 
> the USA has 3 percent violent crime by population
> 
> The United Kingdom has 10 percent by population
> 
> Germany has 7 percent by population
> 
> France has 5 percent by population.
> 
> Canada has 7 percent by population.
> 
> The murder rate in the US is 4.7 per 100000 as established by the FBI. The link in question shows that 3.6 of those are by firearms.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
Click to expand...


London is more violent than Miami...who knew?   
This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...


----------



## Geaux4it

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the slow and stupid.
> 
> the USA has 3 percent violent crime by population
> 
> The United Kingdom has 10 percent by population
> 
> Germany has 7 percent by population
> 
> France has 5 percent by population.
> 
> Canada has 7 percent by population.
> 
> The murder rate in the US is 4.7 per 100000 as established by the FBI. The link in question shows that 3.6 of those are by firearms.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
Click to expand...


There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux4it said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

You folks are living in a fantasy world. Please buy some gravity boots and come back down to earth.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> [
> 
> You mean like how the British do not report a murder unless someone is convicted? According to you that is irrelevant. As for your claim to bad these are UN Figures, are you now admitting the UN does not know what they are talking about?
> 
> As I recall you were in the threads on health care and pooh poohed the fact that different countries report births widely different when claiming the US death of a new born is compared.
> 
> Even the British admit their violence has sky rocketed with the elimination of private ownership of firearms, has has Australia and other nations.



One time guy, for the UK to have a murder rate ANYWHERE CLOSE to the US, the British prosecutors would have to have a conviction rate of 1%.   It just doesn't happen. 

The UN relies on figures submitted by member nations.  And the problem is, the US ONLY counts violent crimes, everyone else counts all crimes.  

We have 16,000 murders, we lock up 2 million Americans and have another 7 million on probation and parole.  We are awash in crime.  Guns have a lot to do with it. 

But heaven forbid you guys admit that.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You mean like how the British do not report a murder unless someone is convicted? According to you that is irrelevant. As for your claim to bad these are UN Figures, are you now admitting the UN does not know what they are talking about?
> 
> As I recall you were in the threads on health care and pooh poohed the fact that different countries report births widely different when claiming the US death of a new born is compared.
> 
> Even the British admit their violence has sky rocketed with the elimination of private ownership of firearms, has has Australia and other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One time guy, for the UK to have a murder rate ANYWHERE CLOSE to the US, the British prosecutors would have to have a conviction rate of 1%.   It just doesn't happen.
> 
> The UN relies on figures submitted by member nations.  And the problem is, the US ONLY counts violent crimes, everyone else counts all crimes.
> 
> We have 16,000 murders, we lock up 2 million Americans and have another 7 million on probation and parole.  We are awash in crime.  Guns have a lot to do with it.
> 
> But heaven forbid you guys admit that.
Click to expand...


I have an idea, what do you think the effect on crimes using a gun would be if we took the guilty and hung them in the public square?

Gun crime would become a non-factor

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> [
> 
> I have an idea, what do you think the effect on crimes using a gun would be if we took the guilty and hung them in the public square?
> 
> Gun crime would become a non-factor
> 
> -Geaux



Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.  

10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops, etc.


----------



## Geaux4it

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I have an idea, what do you think the effect on crimes using a gun would be if we took the guilty and hung them in the public square?
> 
> Gun crime would become a non-factor
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> 10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops, etc.
Click to expand...


Acceptable risk

-Geaux


----------



## Wildman

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I have an idea, what do you think the effect on crimes using a gun would be if we took the guilty and hung them in the public square?
> 
> Gun crime would become a non-factor
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> *10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops,* etc.
Click to expand...


i need to see proof of this bullshit allegation provide a link to your lie !!


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I have an idea, what do you think the effect on crimes using a gun would be if we took the guilty and hung them in the public square?
> 
> Gun crime would become a non-factor
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> 10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


So if you get falsely accused of a crime, you'll happily let them hang you in the public square becuase you'll be providing a fine example to discourage criminals?  Really?  

Besides the fact that capital punishment has no deterent value, I don't see you as being that selfless.  

I'm sure you'll happily volunteer other innocent people up for wrongful execution, though.


----------



## JoeB131

Wildman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I have an idea, what do you think the effect on crimes using a gun would be if we took the guilty and hung them in the public square?
> 
> Gun crime would become a non-factor
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> *10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops,* etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i need to see proof of this bullshit allegation provide a link to your lie !!
Click to expand...


Why, you'll just ignore it, anyway.


----------



## Wildman

*i believe every gun hating liberal/democRAT post a sign like this, say 18"X24" visible from the street in their yard and a smaller one on their front door.
*






*this will stop all violence committed by criminals with guns.................., RIGHT ??  i hope you gun haters noticed i did NOT say "gun violence"...., if FACT maters, there is no such thing as a violent gun, just you haters are violent !! *


----------



## Wildman

JoeB131 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> *10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops,* etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i need to see proof of this bullshit allegation provide a link to your lie !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why, you'll just ignore it, anyway*.
Click to expand...


oooooh no !! i never ignore your *FACTS* when/if you ever post any, your link to this absurdness will *NOT* be ignored, i promise you, i will make hay with your *FACTS* that 10,000 innocent people are convicted every year..., please now post that link........, pretty please !!  *pretty please with whip creme on it *


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> *10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops,* etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i need to see proof of this bullshit allegation provide a link to your lie !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, you'll just ignore it, anyway.
Click to expand...


Brave Sir JoeB ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir JoeB turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.

****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir JoeB!
("I never!")


----------



## MonaGonna

*Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

Make anyone who wants to buy a gun pass a drug test. And don't sell to Mexicans.


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> And don't sell to Mexicans.



Only the US government is authorized to make straw purchases to Mexicans; just ask Eric Holder.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tired of depressing news? Smile, because here is some very positive news: 50 U.S. Senators&#8212;both Democrats and Republicans&#8212;have pledged to stop Obama&#8217;s latest attack on the Second Amendment.

Last week, all 50 senators wrote a letter to Obama pledging not to ratify the United Nations&#8217; Arms Trade Treaty. In order for this treaty to be ratified, it would need 60 &#8220;yay&#8221; votes in the Senate. This means, gun owners will not need to forfeit their God-given right to self-defense and President Obama is on notice that his latest attack on the Second Amendment is dead on arrival in the Senate.

This fall, the Obama administration signed the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. As I warned gun owners in August, this treaty undermines your Second Amendment rights, places international law on a pedestal above our Constitution and encourages the creation of a national gun registry.

Obama pledged that he would never sign the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

Senate Wins Big Victory for 2nd Amendment - Katie Kieffer - Page 1


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the slow and stupid.
> 
> the USA has 3 percent violent crime by population
> 
> The United Kingdom has 10 percent by population
> 
> Germany has 7 percent by population
> 
> France has 5 percent by population.
> 
> Canada has 7 percent by population.
> 
> The murder rate in the US is 4.7 per 100000 as established by the FBI. The link in question shows that 3.6 of those are by firearms.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
Click to expand...


It's interesting how you pick those cities, which so clearly demonstrate massive differences between the US and the UK.  London you can basically only arrive from air.  Miami is a melting pot from Latin America, both legal and illegal immigration.

As I've pointed out before, your cliche of gun owners being mainstream white, more rural Americans is largely true.  The lie is that isn't where more than a fraction of the gun crimes are occurring.  Gun crimes are dominated by inner city, mostly non-white communities with a high rate committed by illegal aliens.

In other words, gun crimes are largely committed where they are already banned.  Your solution?  Banning them.  Why will it work?  You don't know.  Why doesn't it work for drugs?  You don't know.  You do know it works in Europe.  Why there? You don't know.  You just know we have to do what we do for drugs and wait a long, long time, then bam, it'll work.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You folks are living in a fantasy world. Please buy some gravity boots and come back down to earth.
Click to expand...


Living "on earth" hasn't been enough for you to address the question in the op...


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> The UN relies on figures submitted by member nations.  And the problem is, the US ONLY counts violent crimes, everyone else counts all crimes.
> 
> We have 16,000 murders, we lock up 2 million Americans and have another 7 million on probation and parole.  We are awash in crime.  Guns have a lot to do with it.



Since the topic is gun laws, to clarify, you consider that crimes committed with guns can be non-violent?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that would be a pretty retarded idea, given we've had 142 people who were sent to death row released when it was discovered someone else did it.
> 
> 10,000 innocent people are convicted of crimes every year due to incompetent lawyers, corrupt cops, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you get falsely accused of a crime, you'll happily let them hang you in the public square becuase you'll be providing a fine example to discourage criminals?  Really?
> 
> Besides the fact that capital punishment has no deterent value, I don't see you as being that selfless.
> 
> I'm sure you'll happily volunteer other innocent people up for wrongful execution, though.
Click to expand...


Watching liberals when logic is coming is like a bloody car accident on the side of the road, you cringe, but you just have to look.

I'm against capital punishment, but your statement is so completely illogical.  What he said was he would take the risk of being executed accidentally so that guilty murderers will be executed.

To say you thought he said he would take the certainty of a wrongful execution is all the logic of a teenage girl on her period.  How can liberals not even process simple, obvious logic?


----------



## nhmod

I am in favor of having fewer guns in circulation.  The problem is simple, it would be impossible to enforce.  Most pro gun control supporters must have no idea of just who many guns exist in the USA and with an equal split between legal and illegal.  
I have no problem with hunting; but would like to have a rule, "You must eat what you shoot."  The people I worry about most are not the criminals but those who know nothing about guns.  I have been asked many times. "Which gun should I buy for self defense?"  Anyone asking that question should not be allowed to own one.


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the slow and stupid.
> 
> the USA has 3 percent violent crime by population
> 
> The United Kingdom has 10 percent by population
> 
> Germany has 7 percent by population
> 
> France has 5 percent by population.
> 
> Canada has 7 percent by population.
> 
> The murder rate in the US is 4.7 per 100000 as established by the FBI. The link in question shows that 3.6 of those are by firearms.
> 
> List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total crimes statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Crime
> 
> List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
Click to expand...


That would be news to nearly everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Miami...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reminder of where it is more violent, those countries with strict firearm laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be news to nearly everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Miami...
Click to expand...


As I already posted in reply to this:

It's interesting how you pick those cities, which so clearly demonstrate massive differences between the US and the UK.  London you can basically only arrive from air.  Miami is a melting pot from Latin America, both legal and illegal immigration.

As I've pointed out before, your cliche of gun owners being mainstream white, more rural Americans is largely true.  The lie is that isn't where more than a fraction of the gun crimes are occurring.  Gun crimes are dominated by inner city, mostly non-white communities with a high rate committed by illegal aliens.

In other words, gun crimes are largely committed where they are already banned.  Your solution?  Banning them.  Why will it work?  You don't know.  Why doesn't it work for drugs?  You don't know.  You do know it works in Europe.  Why there? You don't know.  You just know we have to do what we do for drugs and wait a long, long time, then bam, it'll work.


----------



## kaz

nhmod said:


> I am in favor of having fewer guns in circulation.  The problem is simple, it would be impossible to enforce.  Most pro gun control supporters must have no idea of just who many guns exist in the USA and with an equal split between legal and illegal.
> I have no problem with hunting; but would like to have a rule, "You must eat what you shoot."  The people I worry about most are not the criminals but those who know nothing about guns.  I have been asked many times. "Which gun should I buy for self defense?"  Anyone asking that question should not be allowed to own one.



It's a reasonable question as long as they are planning to go to the NRA and learn how to use it safely.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> London is more violent than Miami...who knew?
> This is the load of BS the gun nuts are trying to sell...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be news to nearly everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Miami...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I already posted in reply to this:
> 
> It's interesting how you pick those cities, which so clearly demonstrate massive differences between the US and the UK.  London you can basically only arrive from air.  Miami is a melting pot from Latin America, both legal and illegal immigration.
> 
> As I've pointed out before, your cliche of gun owners being mainstream white, more rural Americans is largely true.  The lie is that isn't where more than a fraction of the gun crimes are occurring.  Gun crimes are dominated by inner city, mostly *non-white* communities with a high rate committed by illegal aliens.
> 
> In other words, gun crimes are largely committed where they are already banned.  Your solution?  Banning them.  Why will it work?  You don't know.  Why doesn't it work for drugs?  You don't know.  You do know it works in Europe.  Why there? You don't know.  You just know we have to do what we do for drugs and wait a long, long time, then bam, it'll work.
Click to expand...


Boom...there go the goal posts yet again.

Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.

It's in the middle of the country  pretty much....

Excuse time...ready...set...go!


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be news to nearly everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Miami...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I already posted in reply to this:
> 
> It's interesting how you pick those cities, which so clearly demonstrate massive differences between the US and the UK.  London you can basically only arrive from air.  Miami is a melting pot from Latin America, both legal and illegal immigration.
> 
> As I've pointed out before, your cliche of gun owners being mainstream white, more rural Americans is largely true.  The lie is that isn't where more than a fraction of the gun crimes are occurring.  Gun crimes are dominated by inner city, mostly *non-white* communities with a high rate committed by illegal aliens.
> 
> In other words, gun crimes are largely committed where they are already banned.  Your solution?  Banning them.  Why will it work?  You don't know.  Why doesn't it work for drugs?  You don't know.  You do know it works in Europe.  Why there? You don't know.  You just know we have to do what we do for drugs and wait a long, long time, then bam, it'll work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boom...there go the goal posts yet again.
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
> 
> It's in the middle of the country  pretty much....
> 
> Excuse time...ready...set...go!
Click to expand...


So when you talk to different people we make different points and that's "moving the goal posts" to you.  That must be very disconcerting.  It's funny because I keep mocking liberals for all not only agreeing on every position but using the same talking points.  You deny it while you do it and even state that's your expectation of "non-liberals."  Non-liberals isn't even one ideology, it's all of us.  But your standard for us is that we work it out and have monolithic views like you do.

As for you, I said Miami and you switched to Detroit.  Then you mocked a point I didn't make.  Seems I wasn't the one who moved them.

As for the highlight, what was your point exactly?


----------



## MonaGonna

nhmod said:


> I am in favor of having fewer guns in circulation.  The problem is simple, it would be impossible to enforce.  Most pro gun control supporters must have no idea of just who many guns exist in the USA and with an equal split between legal and illegal.
> I have no problem with hunting; but would like to have a rule, "You must eat what you shoot."  The people I worry about most are not the criminals but those who know nothing about guns.  I have been asked many times. "Which gun should I buy for self defense?"  Anyone asking that question should not be allowed to own one.



Just only sell guns to people who pass IQ and drug tests. Eventually the guns in circulation will either stop working or end up in Mexico, or both.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> nhmod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in favor of having fewer guns in circulation.  The problem is simple, it would be impossible to enforce.  Most pro gun control supporters must have no idea of just who many guns exist in the USA and with an equal split between legal and illegal.
> I have no problem with hunting; but would like to have a rule, "You must eat what you shoot."  The people I worry about most are not the criminals but those who know nothing about guns.  I have been asked many times. "Which gun should I buy for self defense?"  Anyone asking that question should not be allowed to own one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just only sell guns to people who pass IQ and drug tests.
Click to expand...


I'd rather do that for voters.  The Democratic party would implode.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> nhmod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in favor of having fewer guns in circulation.  The problem is simple, it would be impossible to enforce.  Most pro gun control supporters must have no idea of just who many guns exist in the USA and with an equal split between legal and illegal.
> I have no problem with hunting; but would like to have a rule, "You must eat what you shoot."  The people I worry about most are not the criminals but those who know nothing about guns.  I have been asked many times. "Which gun should I buy for self defense?"  Anyone asking that question should not be allowed to own one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually the guns in circulation will either stop working or end up in Mexico, or both.
Click to expand...


Read the op and stop dancing.  This is the point it addresses.


----------



## rdean

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Republican's plan is to make them mandatory for everyone:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican's plan is to make them mandatory for everyone:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html
Click to expand...


The right to have a gun makes them "mandatory for everyone."  Gotcha Skippy.  Here's my favorite quote from the article.

"Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion."

What an insight, three things mentioned in the Bill of Rights are "on the same level."  Liberals are all over this, aren't you?

You either didn't read the article you linked or didn't understand it, so I'll give you the 411.  The ruling says that Felons who were not convicted of a felony involving gun use cannot be banned from having a gun based on the Amendment.  However, felons who were convicted of a felony using a gun can be banned.

So what we have is that Louisiana residents who are not convicted of a Felony involving guns cannot be denied the right to gun ownership.  Wow, hard hitting. What is the massive point you believe that makes related to the conversation?


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be news to nearly everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Miami...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I already posted in reply to this:
> 
> It's interesting how you pick those cities, which so clearly demonstrate massive differences between the US and the UK.  London you can basically only arrive from air.  Miami is a melting pot from Latin America, both legal and illegal immigration.
> 
> As I've pointed out before, your cliche of gun owners being mainstream white, more rural Americans is largely true.  The lie is that isn't where more than a fraction of the gun crimes are occurring.  Gun crimes are dominated by inner city, mostly *non-white* communities with a high rate committed by illegal aliens.
> 
> In other words, gun crimes are largely committed where they are already banned.  Your solution?  Banning them.  Why will it work?  You don't know.  Why doesn't it work for drugs?  You don't know.  You do know it works in Europe.  Why there? You don't know.  You just know we have to do what we do for drugs and wait a long, long time, then bam, it'll work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boom...there go the goal posts yet again.
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
> 
> It's in the middle of the country  pretty much....
> 
> Excuse time...ready...set...go!
Click to expand...


Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.


----------



## nhmod

The comparison between the USA and England I know is incorrect.  Is the term "violent crime" the same for all locations.  In England, a few years ago, one violent crime was a person throwing a dead cat at another (and missing).  What is considered and how it is reported does make a difference.
According to the reference provided England id considerably lower with violent crime than the US. I wonder if the case in Texas where the fellow handed a women a hundred dollars expecting to have sex and shot her as she was leaving.  She died from the wound about 2 days later and he was cleared of all charges.  I don't believe this made the violent crime list.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I already posted in reply to this:
> 
> It's interesting how you pick those cities, which so clearly demonstrate massive differences between the US and the UK.  London you can basically only arrive from air.  Miami is a melting pot from Latin America, both legal and illegal immigration.
> 
> As I've pointed out before, your cliche of gun owners being mainstream white, more rural Americans is largely true.  The lie is that isn't where more than a fraction of the gun crimes are occurring.  Gun crimes are dominated by inner city, mostly *non-white* communities with a high rate committed by illegal aliens.
> 
> In other words, gun crimes are largely committed where they are already banned.  Your solution?  Banning them.  Why will it work?  You don't know.  Why doesn't it work for drugs?  You don't know.  You do know it works in Europe.  Why there? You don't know.  You just know we have to do what we do for drugs and wait a long, long time, then bam, it'll work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boom...there go the goal posts yet again.
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
> 
> It's in the middle of the country  pretty much....
> 
> Excuse time...ready...set...go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
Click to expand...


Going 8 year old now?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nhmod said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in favor of having fewer guns in circulation.  The problem is simple, it would be impossible to enforce.  Most pro gun control supporters must have no idea of just who many guns exist in the USA and with an equal split between legal and illegal.
> I have no problem with hunting; but would like to have a rule, "You must eat what you shoot."  The people I worry about most are not the criminals but those who know nothing about guns.  I have been asked many times. "Which gun should I buy for self defense?"  Anyone asking that question should not be allowed to own one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually the guns in circulation will either stop working or end up in Mexico, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the op and stop dancing.  This is the point it addresses.
Click to expand...


I can dance if I want to...

You have no plan, so shut up.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boom...there go the goal posts yet again.
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
> 
> It's in the middle of the country  pretty much....
> 
> Excuse time...ready...set...go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going 8 year old now?
Click to expand...


Gee, London is more violent than Philadelphia.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Philly.  

This is the line of BS the gun loons are trying to sell.


----------



## rdean

kaz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican's plan is to make them mandatory for everyone:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to have a gun makes them "mandatory for everyone."  Gotcha Skippy.  Here's my favorite quote from the article.
> 
> "Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion."
> 
> What an insight, three things mentioned in the Bill of Rights are "on the same level."  Liberals are all over this, aren't you?
> 
> You either didn't read the article you linked or didn't understand it, so I'll give you the 411.  The ruling says that Felons who were not convicted of a felony involving gun use cannot be banned from having a gun based on the Amendment.  However, felons who were convicted of a felony using a gun can be banned.
> 
> *So what we have is that Louisiana residents who are not convicted of a Felony involving guns cannot be denied the right to gun ownership.  Wow, hard hitting. What is the massive point you believe that makes related to the conversation?*
Click to expand...


Not too bright, are you "Skippy".  You are like a pair of children s scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp.

» LA Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional

Almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters who cast ballots in November approved adding to the state constitution, The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, is *fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed*, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.

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

See that?  Even "felons" are allowed "Fundamental rights".  It's why they are called "fundamental rights".  When Republicans make gun ownership a "fundamental right",  they gave that right to felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers.  Sheesh, you guys.  What's wrong with you?

Try to figure out what is normally considered a "fundamental right".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican's plan is to make them mandatory for everyone:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to have a gun makes them "mandatory for everyone."  Gotcha Skippy.  Here's my favorite quote from the article.
> 
> "Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion."
> 
> What an insight, three things mentioned in the Bill of Rights are "on the same level."  Liberals are all over this, aren't you?
> 
> You either didn't read the article you linked or didn't understand it, so I'll give you the 411.  The ruling says that Felons who were not convicted of a felony involving gun use cannot be banned from having a gun based on the Amendment.  However, felons who were convicted of a felony using a gun can be banned.
> 
> *So what we have is that Louisiana residents who are not convicted of a Felony involving guns cannot be denied the right to gun ownership.  Wow, hard hitting. What is the massive point you believe that makes related to the conversation?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too bright, are you "Skippy".  You are like a pair of children s scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp.
> 
> » LA Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional
> 
> Almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters who cast ballots in November approved adding to the state constitution, The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, is *fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed*, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> See that?  Even "felons" are allowed "Fundamental rights".  It's why they are called "fundamental rights".  When Republicans make gun ownership a "fundamental right",  they gave that right to felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers.  Sheesh, you guys.  What's wrong with you?
> 
> Try to figure out what is normally considered a "fundamental right".
Click to expand...


All one need do is show a reasonable reason for a restriction. It does not invalidate laws that restrict violent felons from firearms. Even your own quoted portion proves that you retard.


----------



## Steven_R

rdean said:


> See that?  Even "felons" are allowed "Fundamental rights".  It's why they are called "fundamental rights".  When Republicans make gun ownership a "fundamental right",  they gave that right to felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers.  Sheesh, you guys.  *What's wrong with you?*
> 
> Try to figure out what is normally considered a "fundamental right".



Some of us believe that once a man's debt to society has been paid, then he should be able to rejoin society with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. Otherwise, all sentences really are life sentences, including those that are truly victimless crimes.  

The question isn't why are we okay with people never getting civil rights back, but rather if a man can never again be trusted, why is he allowed to roam free if he is still a threat?


----------



## candycorn

The article continues:

The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.

If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.

Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).

Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).

Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).

Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).

Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).

Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).

Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).

Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).

Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).

Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).

Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).

Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).

New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).

Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and *Austin*, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

Austin...the capitol of the reddest state in the union...


----------



## Geaux4it

candycorn said:


>



Nobody cares except about 5 lefties on this board

((((YAWN)))))

-Geaux


----------



## rdean

RetiredGySgt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to have a gun makes them "mandatory for everyone."  Gotcha Skippy.  Here's my favorite quote from the article.
> 
> "Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion."
> 
> What an insight, three things mentioned in the Bill of Rights are "on the same level."  Liberals are all over this, aren't you?
> 
> You either didn't read the article you linked or didn't understand it, so I'll give you the 411.  The ruling says that Felons who were not convicted of a felony involving gun use cannot be banned from having a gun based on the Amendment.  However, felons who were convicted of a felony using a gun can be banned.
> 
> *So what we have is that Louisiana residents who are not convicted of a Felony involving guns cannot be denied the right to gun ownership.  Wow, hard hitting. What is the massive point you believe that makes related to the conversation?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bright, are you "Skippy".  You are like a pair of children s scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp.
> 
> » LA Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional
> 
> Almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters who cast ballots in November approved adding to the state constitution, The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, is *fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed*, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> See that?  Even "felons" are allowed "Fundamental rights".  It's why they are called "fundamental rights".  When Republicans make gun ownership a "fundamental right",  they gave that right to felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers.  Sheesh, you guys.  What's wrong with you?
> 
> Try to figure out what is normally considered a "fundamental right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All one need do is show a reasonable reason for a restriction. It does not invalidate laws that restrict violent felons from firearms. Even your own quoted portion proves that you retard.
Click to expand...


Not for a "fundamental right" dumbass.  Why do you think it's going to court?  Because liberals want felons to have guns?


----------



## Geaux4it

rdean said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bright, are you "Skippy".  You are like a pair of children s scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp.
> 
> » LA Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional
> 
> Almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters who cast ballots in November approved adding to the state constitution, The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, is *fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed*, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> See that?  Even "felons" are allowed "Fundamental rights".  It's why they are called "fundamental rights".  When Republicans make gun ownership a "fundamental right",  they gave that right to felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers.  Sheesh, you guys.  What's wrong with you?
> 
> Try to figure out what is normally considered a "fundamental right".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All one need do is show a reasonable reason for a restriction. It does not invalidate laws that restrict violent felons from firearms. Even your own quoted portion proves that you retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not for a "fundamental right" dumbass.  Why do you think it's going to court?  Because liberals want felons to have guns?
Click to expand...


Why don't all you fags get a conga line going and start a confiscating?

Get with it son

-Geaux


----------



## rdean

candycorn said:


> The article continues:
> 
> The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.
> 
> If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
> 
> Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
> 
> Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
> 
> Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
> 
> Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
> 
> Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
> 
> Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
> 
> Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
> 
> Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
> 
> Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
> 
> Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
> 
> Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
> 
> Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
> 
> New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
> 
> Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and *Austin*, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.
> 
> Austin...the capitol of the reddest state in the union...



70% of gun deaths are suicide.  

FIREARM INJURY IN THE U.S. 

Most of those are white guys in Red States.  Listen to these right wingers and you would swear 99% of all gun deaths in the world would be black guys in Chicago.


----------



## Geaux4it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-recall-results_n_3903209.html

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

WASHINGTON -- The first recall election in Colorado's history on Tuesday marked a stunning victory for the National Rifle Association and gun rights activists, with the ouster of two Democrats -- Senate President John Morse (Colorado Springs) and state Sen. Angela Giron (Pueblo). The two lawmakers were the target of separate recall fights over their support for stricter gun laws earlier this year.

"The highest rank in a democracy is citizen, not senate president," Morse said in his concession speech, as his supporters solemnly watched, some shedding tears.

What originally began as local political fallout over the Democratic-controlled legislature's comprehensive gun control package quickly escalated into a national referendum on gun policy. Morse and Giron both voted in favor of the legislation, signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March, which requires background checks for all firearm purchases and bans ammunition magazines over 15 rounds.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

100 pages and not one lefty has answered the question posed by the op.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> 100 pages and not one lefty has answered the question posed by the op.



The answer was given...your "punitive tax" nonsense wasn't an answer; it's an excuse...

You've gotten to the hilarious point of trying to argue that London is more violent than Detroit   Anyone with eyeballs knows it isn't the truth.  

Simply make the guns expensive and the supply dries up.  And when the supply goes away it goes away across the board; including criminals.  

At the same time; if you use a gun to commit a crime, you need to go away for 10-30 years.  No parole.  First time offender or lifelong criminal...see ya.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100 pages and not one lefty has answered the question posed by the op.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer was given...your "punitive tax" nonsense wasn't an answer; it's an excuse...
> 
> You've gotten to the hilarious point of trying to argue that London is more violent than Detroit   Anyone with eyeballs knows it isn't the truth.
> 
> Simply make the guns expensive and the supply dries up.  And when the supply goes away it goes away across the board; including criminals.
> 
> At the same time; if you use a gun to commit a crime, you need to go away for 10-30 years.  No parole.  First time offender or lifelong criminal...see ya.
Click to expand...


Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid... If a tax on voting is unconstitutional because it INFRINGES the right, then a punitive tax on firearms is also unconstitutional.


----------



## candycorn

RetiredGySgt said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100 pages and not one lefty has answered the question posed by the op.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer was given...your "punitive tax" nonsense wasn't an answer; it's an excuse...
> 
> You've gotten to the hilarious point of trying to argue that London is more violent than Detroit   Anyone with eyeballs knows it isn't the truth.
> 
> Simply make the guns expensive and the supply dries up.  And when the supply goes away it goes away across the board; including criminals.
> 
> At the same time; if you use a gun to commit a crime, you need to go away for 10-30 years.  No parole.  First time offender or lifelong criminal...see ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid... If a tax on voting is unconstitutional because it INFRINGES the right, then a punitive tax on firearms is also unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually the guns in circulation will either stop working or end up in Mexico, or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the op and stop dancing.  This is the point it addresses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can dance if I want to...
> 
> You have no plan, so shut up.
Click to expand...


Of course I have a plan.  Follow the Constitution and allow people to defend themselves.

One thing I love about the international left is how you're arrogantly condescending to Americans, who you think don't learn anything about the world, while you don't give a crap about learning anything about us...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, London is more voilent than Detroit.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Detroit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going 8 year old now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, London is more violent than Philadelphia.  Who Knew?  That would be news to everyone on the planet...including the Mayor of Philly.
> 
> This is the line of BS the gun loons are trying to sell.
Click to expand...


That's a non sequitur to anything I've ever said.  Sorry to use such a hard word to an 8 year old.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican's plan is to make them mandatory for everyone:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...or-felons-rapists-and-murderers-good-job.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to have a gun makes them "mandatory for everyone."  Gotcha Skippy.  Here's my favorite quote from the article.
> 
> "Derbigny ruled that the entire statute -- RS 14:95.1 -- was unconstitutional after voters last year approved by a sweeping majority a constitutional amendment backed by the National Rifle Association. That bill made gun ownership a "fundamental right," on the same level as freedom of speech or religion."
> 
> What an insight, three things mentioned in the Bill of Rights are "on the same level."  Liberals are all over this, aren't you?
> 
> You either didn't read the article you linked or didn't understand it, so I'll give you the 411.  The ruling says that Felons who were not convicted of a felony involving gun use cannot be banned from having a gun based on the Amendment.  However, felons who were convicted of a felony using a gun can be banned.
> 
> *So what we have is that Louisiana residents who are not convicted of a Felony involving guns cannot be denied the right to gun ownership.  Wow, hard hitting. What is the massive point you believe that makes related to the conversation?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too bright, are you "Skippy".  You are like a pair of children s scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp.
> 
> » LA Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional
> 
> Almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters who cast ballots in November approved adding to the state constitution, The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, is *fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed*, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> See that?  Even "felons" are allowed "Fundamental rights".  It's why they are called "fundamental rights".  When Republicans make gun ownership a "fundamental right",  they gave that right to felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers.  Sheesh, you guys.  What's wrong with you?
> 
> Try to figure out what is normally considered a "fundamental right".
Click to expand...


1)  My God man, Google the word "mandatory" because you don't know what it means.  Mandatory does not mean "available."  They said people have the right to buy a gun, no one is requiring them to do that.

2)  No where in the amendment did Louisiana voters say convicted felons can have guns.  Rights mean they cannot be taken without ... wait for it ... due process ... of law.  A convicted felon has had ... wait for it ... due process.

3)  It was a judge who then took the amendment and undid due process, not the Republican party. But even the judge did not give it to all "felons and rapists and bank robbers and drug dealers."  He gave it back to the ones who did not commit their crimes with guns.  The article you cited isn't saying the crap you're making up.

You are an idiot. But there have to be liberals out there who are reading your crap and see the fallacy.  It is their ovine silence I find perplexing.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> Not for a "fundamental right" dumbass.  Why do you think it's going to court?  Because liberals want felons to have guns?



Yes and in fact liberals want felons to be the only ones to have guns.


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer was given...your "punitive tax" nonsense wasn't an answer; it's an excuse...
> 
> You've gotten to the hilarious point of trying to argue that London is more violent than Detroit   Anyone with eyeballs knows it isn't the truth.
> 
> Simply make the guns expensive and the supply dries up.  And when the supply goes away it goes away across the board; including criminals.
> 
> At the same time; if you use a gun to commit a crime, you need to go away for 10-30 years.  No parole.  First time offender or lifelong criminal...see ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid... If a tax on voting is unconstitutional because it INFRINGES the right, then a punitive tax on firearms is also unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.
Click to expand...


Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.

We have lost sight of that.


----------



## candycorn

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid... If a tax on voting is unconstitutional because it INFRINGES the right, then a punitive tax on firearms is also unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
Click to expand...


The tax will fund the government sir.

The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.

All costs money.  

At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.


----------



## MonaGonna

Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.





Let's say you get your way and guns are heavily restricted. I'm not giving up my guns, ever. Are you willing to kick in my front door to take them from me physically, or will you be content to rely on your righteous indignation while you send other people's husbands and sons and fathers into harm's way? How many dead cops is it worth in your mind to disarm 100,000,000 gun owners who did nothing illegal today and will never do anything illegal just because of a small minority of owners?


----------



## MonaGonna

Steven_R said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are heavily restricted. I'm not giving up my guns, ever. Are you willing to kick in my front door to take them from me physically, or will you be content to rely on your righteous indignation while you send other people's husbands and sons and fathers into harm's way? How many dead cops is it worth in your mind to disarm 100,000,000 gun owners who did nothing illegal today and will never do anything illegal just because of a small minority of owners?
Click to expand...


Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it. 
I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax will fund the government sir.
> 
> The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.
> 
> All costs money.
> 
> At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.
Click to expand...


But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.



Do you or do you not have the right to life?


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are heavily restricted. I'm not giving up my guns, ever. Are you willing to kick in my front door to take them from me physically, or will you be content to rely on your righteous indignation while you send other people's husbands and sons and fathers into harm's way? How many dead cops is it worth in your mind to disarm 100,000,000 gun owners who did nothing illegal today and will never do anything illegal just because of a small minority of owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
> I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.
Click to expand...


So guns are so bad that nobody should have them...but we'll wait until a few generations down the road to get them all because of grandfathering? Nope. If guns are that bad you have to get them all right now, police casualties be damned, or guns really aren't that bad. Which is it?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.



The question in the op addresses this repetition of your shallow point.  Get over your international leftist elitist attitude and learn something about the country you unhesitatingly lecture.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tax will fund the government sir.
> 
> The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.
> 
> All costs money.
> 
> At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.
Click to expand...


Begging the question:  Assuming the truth of your own argument.  You do love doing that.   If we had gun laws, bam, no guns.  And yet you have zero idea how to accomplish that other than the war on drugs template, which doesn't work.  But since we won't follow your idea, then we get stuck with the cost of the crimes that happen now.  What a load.

And Marty's obvious point you didn't grasp was that punitive taxes are designed to punish, not to raise revenue.  If the money raised is spent, that doesn't change that the purpose of the tax was to punish.  And who does it punish?  Honest citizens.  You just make it easier for criminals to commit crimes by lowering the risk for them.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass a constitutional amendment reversing the second amendment about the guns. Then restrict their sale very heavily to real hunters only, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are heavily restricted. I'm not giving up my guns, ever. Are you willing to kick in my front door to take them from me physically, or will you be content to rely on your righteous indignation while you send other people's husbands and sons and fathers into harm's way? How many dead cops is it worth in your mind to disarm 100,000,000 gun owners who did nothing illegal today and will never do anything illegal just because of a small minority of owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
> I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.
Click to expand...


Buying pot is no problem and that's already illegal.  Maybe your plan won't work.  Which we know because it doesn't work...


----------



## Steven_R

Bern80 said:


> And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.



It just occurred to me that the pictures of dead kids is a great tool. Maybe we should start countering with pictures of Randy Weaver's kids or the kids at Waco or the agent pulling Elian Gonzalez from his aunt's arms at gunpoint. After all, the police and military are the only ones professional enough to use guns responsibly.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say you get your way and guns are heavily restricted. I'm not giving up my guns, ever. Are you willing to kick in my front door to take them from me physically, or will you be content to rely on your righteous indignation while you send other people's husbands and sons and fathers into harm's way? How many dead cops is it worth in your mind to disarm 100,000,000 gun owners who did nothing illegal today and will never do anything illegal just because of a small minority of owners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
> I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buying pot is no problem and that's already illegal.  Maybe your plan won't work.  Which we know because it doesn't work...
Click to expand...


Comparing bullets to pot is, as you yourself even know, laughable. That aside, nobody's tried my suggestions anyways, so on what do you base your "because it doesn't work" statement?


----------



## kaz

Steven_R said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me that the pictures of dead kids is a great tool. Maybe we should start countering with pictures of Randy Weaver's kids or the kids at Waco or the agent pulling Elian Gonzalez from his aunt's arms at gunpoint. After all, the police and military are the only ones professional enough to use guns responsibly.
Click to expand...


So you don't think when someone breaks into your home that making sure you're unarmed to defend them shows how much liberals care about kids?  When the government murders Randy Weaver's wife and all the women and children in Waco to your point they suddenly become acceptable losses.  Just like government giving Grandma's home in New London to a corporation was an acceptable loss.

The only consistency in liberal arguments is love of government.  Your having a gun isn't expanding the power of government.  That's the issue.  They could give a crap about children dying.  Now exploiting the death of children, that they're all over...


----------



## Steven_R

Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
> I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buying pot is no problem and that's already illegal.  Maybe your plan won't work.  Which we know because it doesn't work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing bullets to pot is, as you yourself even know, laughable.
Click to expand...

I know nothing of the sort, but I am laughing at you so you're part right.   All you want to do is make sure that criminals are the only ones who can get bullets and guns.



MonaGonna said:


> That aside, nobody's tried my suggestions anyways, so on what do you base your "because it doesn't work" statement?



We have endless gun laws now and you're just expanding them and you're proposing what we do with drugs which doesn't work.  You know nothing about the US and you have no interest in learning because you're an elitists snob who already knows everything.  But in this country the left make sure anyone can walk across the border from Mexico.  But I "even know" they can't just bring bullets and guns with them while they do it, like the do now with drugs.  You're the one living in a fantasy land.


----------



## Steven_R

kaz said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just occurred to me that the pictures of dead kids is a great tool. Maybe we should start countering with pictures of Randy Weaver's kids or the kids at Waco or the agent pulling Elian Gonzalez from his aunt's arms at gunpoint. After all, the police and military are the only ones professional enough to use guns responsibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think when someone breaks into your home that making sure you're unarmed to defend them shows how much liberals care about kids?  When the government murders Randy Weaver's wife and all the women and children in Waco to your point they suddenly become acceptable losses.  Just like government giving Grandma's home in New London to a corporation was an acceptable loss.
> 
> The only consistency in liberal arguments is love of government.  Your having a gun isn't expanding the power of government.  That's the issue.  They could give a crap about children dying.  Now exploiting the death of children, that they're all over...
Click to expand...


Lon Horiuchi had to get it on, man. Vicki Weaver was holding an assault baby. He was totally justified in putting a bullet in her brain. Who knows how dangerous that baby was?


----------



## MonaGonna

Steven_R said:


> Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.



Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.
Click to expand...


This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am a hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tax will fund the government sir.
> 
> The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.
> 
> All costs money.
> 
> At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.
Click to expand...


Love it when someone tells me my intent.  
What I listed above infringes not one iota on anyone's right.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.
Click to expand...


Again, begging the question.  You don't have a plan to stop anyone from getting bullets, so your point is irrelevant.  When you have a plan, read the op and answer the question, it's simple.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax will fund the government sir.
> 
> The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.
> 
> All costs money.
> 
> At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love it when someone tells me my intent.
> What I listed above infringes not one iota on anyone's right.
Click to expand...


Hmm...the one who said what your intent was would be you, so why do you object?  You've said you want punitive taxes for gun ownership.  Why do you object to having what you said repeated back to you exactly?

The issue, is that you only have a plan to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns.  You have no idea how to keep them from criminals.  We will be safer if when criminals commit crimes, they are the only ones who have a gun.  I still don't get how your plan makes us safer.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see...it is impossible to even look at a gun or box of ammunition without a FIOD card in Illinois, but Chicago is one of the most dangerous places on Earth. The same is true in DC and Baltimore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.
Click to expand...


Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grandfathering everyone's LEGAL guns would have to do. But eventually, they'll either all stop working, or real gun enthusiasts will take care of them so that they work for generations. But all the crooks... the gun will jam and they'll toss it.
> I'd also make it a lot harder to buy bullets. It seems like buying bullets is no problem. That's not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buying pot is no problem and that's already illegal.  Maybe your plan won't work.  Which we know because it doesn't work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing bullets to pot is, as you yourself even know, laughable. That aside, nobody's tried my suggestions anyways, so on what do you base your "because it doesn't work" statement?
Click to expand...


The gun grabbers have no intention of creating an amendment and trying to pass it. Why? because they know it would never pass. But it is the only legal means to restrict firearms like they want.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black people in those cities don't hunt, so they shouldn't be buying bullets in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
Click to expand...


Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?


----------



## martybegan

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, *don't you think SOMETHING has to be done*?
Click to expand...


The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)

all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.


----------



## JoeNormal

martybegan said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, *don't you think SOMETHING has to be done*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)
> 
> all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.
Click to expand...


Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle.  You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done.  It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.


----------



## martybegan

JoeNormal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, *don't you think SOMETHING has to be done*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)
> 
> all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle.  You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done.  It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.
Click to expand...



Things can be done. Enforce current laws if you catch a felon with a firearm. Create a system where mentally deficient people are adjudicated and prevented from owning firearms. Increase penalties for committing crimes with a firearm. Allow people who have CCW's to carry their weapons except in controlled perimeter locations. 

All of these can be done without infringing on my right to own a firearm, and would actually do something to reduce gun violence.


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?



Yes, and it's a simple three step program.

1) Put violent criminals in prison and keep them there until they are no longer a threat to the community
2) Have a real mental health system in this country
3) Treat each and every citizen as a responsible adult until such time as that individual proves through actions that he or she is incapable of being trusted with those rights and then refer back to 1 or 2.


----------



## kaz

JoeNormal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, *don't you think SOMETHING has to be done*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)
> 
> all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle.  You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done.  It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.
Click to expand...


This is a point I made before, the gun totin' hillbillies are the cliche, but they are committing very few of the murders.  Liberals are just saying we don't want criminals to have guns, so let's make them illegal.  Then they just assume that would work and discuss it as if that way there are no more guns.  Criminals won't be able to figure out then how to commit crimes.  Farts will smell like lilacs, we'll all sing kumbaya and dogs will lie down with cats.

Candycane did mention it was going to take a while, so we should start now.  She's not told us yet what color the sky is in her world.   I'm thinking it's cotton candy pink.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?
Click to expand...


These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens.  The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals.  Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens.  The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals.  Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens.  The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals.  Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.
Click to expand...



And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly.  You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them.  The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.  

Geez, read the op for real.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are all how you keep hands out of honest citizens.  The question in the op was how you keep them away from criminals.  Any thought on that or are you just sticking with the American liberal plan of making sure only government and the criminals are armed?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly.  You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them.  The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.
> 
> Geez, read the op for real.
Click to expand...


If each person can only buy 1 gun every ten years, no assault weapons... and you can't be on drugs, how are criminals going to arm up their posses?


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tax will fund the government sir.
> 
> The police that investigate the shootings, the police that have to mop the blood off the sidewalks, the courts that prosecute the shootings, the emergency rooms that have to remove the shrapnel...those dixie cups they place over the spent shell casings.
> 
> All costs money.
> 
> At the very least if we're forcing drivers like me who have very few if any accidents to carry liability insurance 24/7, we should at least force gun owners who have very few if any shootings to carry equitable insurance for the elements who aren't so careful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that isn't your intent. And like it or not that's what's at question. Your misguided intent is to stigamatize and penalize gun ownership by any means possible. Well you don't have the right to do that because that would be infringing on my right to have a gun. You do have the right to try to get the 2nd ammendment repealed through the processes outlined in the constitution, but you have yet to establish a rationale argument for doing so. And no, holding up pictures of children is not a rationale argument. That is a plea to emotion and a misguided one at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love it when someone tells me my intent.
> What I listed above infringes not one iota on anyone's right.
Click to expand...


Not sure why you're amused by me telling you your intent when you've stated it several times here.  When you make it more difficult for me to exercise my right you are indeed infringing on it. This would be a case where words truly mean something. Specifically the word 'infringe'. I can infringe on your ability to own a car by placing high taxes on it, but I'm I still infringing on your ability to own one by doing so. The 2nd amendment does not read 'shall not be repealed'. 

You really need to look at this in context of the constitution and individual freedom. Individual liberty is kind of a major concept in our society and to the founders. They recognized that the rights of individuals, including their right to life, does not come from government. It's inalienable. Therefore if I have the right to life and freedom then i have the right to defend myself against anyone who would attempt to take it by any means necessary. That's what the second amendment is really about. It is about acknowledging the the fact that the individual has the right to defend their own liberty. Not only should you consider that the amendment exists at all, you should consider that it's the 2nd amendment of the constitution. That the framers believed the only thing more important than the right to defend one's liberty is the concept that you actual have liberty in the form of freedom of speech and self expression in the first place (no pun intended).


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly.  You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them.  The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.
> 
> Geez, read the op for real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If each person can only buy 1 gun every ten years, no assault weapons... and you can't be on drugs, how are criminals going to arm up their posses?
Click to expand...


Well, they are criminals. They can get guns the same way they get drugs: via smuggling. You think I can just bebop down to the 7-11 to get a full-auto AK-47? No, but I can get them from the cartels, the same way I can get cocaine and heroin. If it is profitable, the cartels will flood the streets with illegal guns just as easily as they did with drugs.

Nevermind how easy it is to just build one (earlier in this threat I posted a link to a blog about a guy who built a AK-47 receiver in his garage out of a shovel). Unless you're going to move the constructive intent goalposts to include lathes and metalworking equipment, there is nothing to stop someone from building a gun factory in their basement, and even criminals are smart enough to use a drill press.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should re-read what I said: you can't be on drugs to buy a gun or ammo. Criminals all use drugs. Close the fucking barn door already. And I never said you couldn't have a gun to protect yourself. Geez, re-read what i posted for real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly.  You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them.  The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.
> 
> Geez, read the op for real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If each person can only buy 1 gun every ten years, no assault weapons... and you can't be on drugs, how are criminals going to arm up their posses?
Click to expand...


Because you are assuming that criminals only will buy legal guns.  How are you going to get someone selling them an illegal gun to take a drug test?


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument seems bizarre to me as well. That hunting is the most and only legitimate use of a gun by a private citizen and I am hunter. To me the right to defend one's own life is a far more legitimate reason than the ability to gather food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?
Click to expand...


Certainly, but focusing on inanimate objects isn't it. Believe it or not in all these mass killing the common denominator is not guns. The common denominator is a sick mind. Why are we not centering the conversation around that? Why are we not trying to figure out how Adam Lanza mentally got to the point where he felt he had to do this? Why are we not talking aobut ways to keep people this dangerous out of society in general? Why aren't we talking about how these people can be involuntarily commited when they pose this much danger to society. That is where the danger to society is coming from. Not from guns. It's coming from people in a dangerous mental state.


----------



## BarrySoetoro

Liberals don't have a clue on gun control.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I specifically addressed your point repeatedly.  You are just assuming that if a gun or ammo are illegal that criminals won't be able to buy them.  The point is that they can and do buy them anyway.
> 
> Geez, read the op for real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If each person can only buy 1 gun every ten years, no assault weapons... and you can't be on drugs, how are criminals going to arm up their posses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are assuming that criminals only will buy legal guns.  How are you going to get someone selling them an illegal gun to take a drug test?
Click to expand...


I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?

And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> If each person can only buy 1 gun every ten years, no assault weapons... and you can't be on drugs, how are criminals going to arm up their posses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are assuming that criminals only will buy legal guns.  How are you going to get someone selling them an illegal gun to take a drug test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.
Click to expand...


And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?

The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?

Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mona believes that criminals won't break the law, so if guns and ammo are illegal they won't buy them to commit crimes.  OK, granted, there are some details in that plan to be ironed out, I think she's working on that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like not selling bullets or guns to people on drugs, with no high school diploma, no real job. Maybe it would be 25 years old minimum. Not sell assault weapons. Only one gun per 10 years per person, and then only enough ammo to either hunt or protect your home, not unlimited supply of ammo anytime. You want to practise, they'll sell you ammo at the range. Like guys, don't you think SOMETHING has to be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly, but focusing on inanimate objects isn't it. Believe it or not in all these mass killing the common denominator is not guns. The common denominator is a sick mind. Why are we not centering the conversation around that? Why are we not trying to figure out how Adam Lanza mentally got to the point where he felt he had to do this? Why are we not talking aobut ways to keep people this dangerous out of society in general? Why aren't we talking about how these people can be involuntarily commited when they pose this much danger to society. That is where the danger to society is coming from. Not from guns. It's coming from people in a dangerous mental state.
Click to expand...


Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.  That is spot on.

And the idea that even if we do go to liberal fantasy land and somehow they couldn't get a gun, they couldn't think of any other way to kill people?  Timothy McVie came up with something....

There are a lot of dangerous things in the world.  Pretending gun laws will remove guns is fantasy, so is believing that would make the world safe.  It's the gun!  No, it's the criminal...


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are assuming that criminals only will buy legal guns.  How are you going to get someone selling them an illegal gun to take a drug test?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?
> 
> The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?
> 
> Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?
Click to expand...


The border should be closed regardless, I don't know what you guys are waiting for. Deputize every Texan to shoot illegals coming across the border. They're all up to no good anyways.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?
> 
> The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?
> 
> Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The border should be closed regardless, I don't know what you guys are waiting for. Deputize every Texan to shoot illegals coming across the border. They're all up to no good anyways.
Click to expand...


The American left call anyone who wants to do that a racist and then campaign in the Latino community Republicans hate them.

The one thing the left is doing that does reduce illegal immigration is they are destroying our economy so there are fewer jobs and fewer people come illegally to try to get them.  However, that doesn't prevent the criminals and drug runners from crossing the open border.


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> Plus regulate bullets a lot better?



Anyone with a high school chemistry class can make gunpowder and lead is readily available. I can make a gun in my garage and it isn't that much harder to make ammunition from scratch as well.

You want to create an underground economy, then ban something. Suddenly that thing you banned is everywhere because of people looking to cash in and profit off of the black market you just created and that leads to all kinds of violence as criminals seek to get a bigger piece of the pie.


----------



## kaz

Steven_R said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a high school chemistry class can make gunpowder and lead is readily available. I can make a gun in my garage and it isn't that much harder to make ammunition from scratch as well.
> 
> You want to create an underground economy, then ban something. Suddenly that thing you banned is everywhere because of people looking to cash in and profit off of the black market you just created and that leads to all kinds of violence as criminals seek to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Click to expand...


The end of Al Capone and organized crime in the 20s wasn't Eliot Ness, it was the end of prohibition.

Yet today, we insist on repeating the same thing with drugs, which funds organized crime.

And liberals want to give them guns as well...

Organized crime loves all those laws.


----------



## M14 Shooter

This topic contines to support the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/oh dishonesty.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are assuming that criminals only will buy legal guns.  How are you going to get someone selling them an illegal gun to take a drug test?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?
> 
> The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?
> 
> Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?
Click to expand...


It's a pretty simple concept actually. Lots of countries around the world regulate guns pretty heavily and all of them have gun deaths lower than the US. Gun nuts must want kids to get shot at school?


----------



## Wildman

martybegan said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The standard progressive mantra. DO SOMETHING!! (is it effective?? WHO CARES ITS SOMETHING!!!!)
> 
> all of your ideas are infringement, and thus require a constitutional amendment, get working on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle.  You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done.  It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Things can be done. Enforce current laws if you catch a felon with a firearm. Create a system where mentally deficient people are adjudicated and prevented from owning firearms. Increase penalties for committing crimes with a firearm. Allow people who have CCW's to carry their weapons except in controlled perimeter locations.
> 
> All of these can be done without infringing on my right to own a firearm, and would actually do something to reduce *gun violence*.
Click to expand...



*gun violence* gawd-a-mighty how i do hate that term 
i have never seen a violent gun in all my 60+ years of owning one, could you provide a photo of a  * violent gun * just so i can avoid one if one comes my way


----------



## MonaGonna

Wildman said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mona, the genie is already out of the bottle.  You heard it from Marty, there's nothing that can be done.  It's just the price we pay for living in a country of gun totin' hillbillies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things can be done. Enforce current laws if you catch a felon with a firearm. Create a system where mentally deficient people are adjudicated and prevented from owning firearms. Increase penalties for committing crimes with a firearm. Allow people who have CCW's to carry their weapons except in controlled perimeter locations.
> 
> All of these can be done without infringing on my right to own a firearm, and would actually do something to reduce *gun violence*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *gun violence* gawd-a-mighty how i do hate that term
> i have never seen a violent gun in all my 60+ years of owning one, could you provide a photo of a  * violent gun * just so i can avoid one if one comes my way
Click to expand...

All guns are violent. They're made to kill. That's their only purpose. Geez, what a noob. No wonder there are so many gun deaths in the US, with duffusses like you.


----------



## martybegan

MonaGonna said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things can be done. Enforce current laws if you catch a felon with a firearm. Create a system where mentally deficient people are adjudicated and prevented from owning firearms. Increase penalties for committing crimes with a firearm. Allow people who have CCW's to carry their weapons except in controlled perimeter locations.
> 
> All of these can be done without infringing on my right to own a firearm, and would actually do something to reduce *gun violence*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *gun violence* gawd-a-mighty how i do hate that term
> i have never seen a violent gun in all my 60+ years of owning one, could you provide a photo of a  * violent gun * just so i can avoid one if one comes my way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All guns are violent. They're made to kill. That's their only purpose. Geez, what a noob. No wonder there are so many gun deaths in the US, with duffusses like you.
Click to expand...


Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.


----------



## MonaGonna

martybegan said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *gun violence* gawd-a-mighty how i do hate that term
> i have never seen a violent gun in all my 60+ years of owning one, could you provide a photo of a  * violent gun * just so i can avoid one if one comes my way
> 
> 
> 
> All guns are violent. They're made to kill. That's their only purpose. Geez, what a noob. No wonder there are so many gun deaths in the US, with duffusses like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.
Click to expand...


And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.


----------



## martybegan

MonaGonna said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> All guns are violent. They're made to kill. That's their only purpose. Geez, what a noob. No wonder there are so many gun deaths in the US, with duffusses like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
Click to expand...


Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1. 

JoeB is this you?


----------



## MonaGonna

martybegan said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
Click to expand...

You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?


----------



## martybegan

MonaGonna said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?
Click to expand...


Standard appeal to emotion from gun grabbers, with no real plan to prevent criminals from getting or making guns even after they have disarmed all the non governmental law abiding citizens.

Move to your socialist utopias, please, now.


----------



## MonaGonna

martybegan said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard appeal to emotion from gun grabbers, with no real plan to prevent criminals from getting or making guns even after they have disarmed all the non governmental law abiding citizens.
> 
> Move to your socialist utopias, please, now.
Click to expand...


OK, so what's YOUR plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?


----------



## martybegan

MonaGonna said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard appeal to emotion from gun grabbers, with no real plan to prevent criminals from getting or making guns even after they have disarmed all the non governmental law abiding citizens.
> 
> Move to your socialist utopias, please, now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so what's YOUR plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Click to expand...


Arrest people who commit crimes with firearms and put them in jail.

Arrest people who shouldnt have firearms and put them in jail.

Arrest people who sell firearms to people who shouldnt have them and put them in jail.

It is up to law enforcement to enforce laws, its not up to me to lose my rights because someone else broke the law.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?
> 
> The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?
> 
> Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a pretty simple concept actually. Lots of countries around the world regulate guns pretty heavily and all of them have gun deaths lower than the US.
Click to expand...


Yes, the concept is simple.  Simple and working unfortunately are completely different things.  We try it with drugs and it doesn't work.  "France" isn't an argument.  Joe mentioned that one too.  Assuming the truth of your own position is also simple.  The American left are intellectually lazy too.



MonaGonna said:


> Gun nuts must want kids to get shot at school?



Yes, we want kids to get shot at school.  Google the fallacy "begging the question" to learn what you are doing.  Oh, and "ad homenim."   You might try "strawman fallacy" and "deflection" too.  Then you'll know the terms for the arguments you are making.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard appeal to emotion from gun grabbers, with no real plan to prevent criminals from getting or making guns even after they have disarmed all the non governmental law abiding citizens.
> 
> Move to your socialist utopias, please, now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so what's YOUR plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Click to expand...


Read the op.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?
> 
> The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?
> 
> Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the concept is simple.  Simple and working unfortunately are completely different things.  We try it with drugs and it doesn't work.  "France" isn't an argument.  Joe mentioned that one too.
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun nuts must want kids to get shot at school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we want kids to get shot at school.  Google the fallacy "begging the question" to learn what you are doing.  Oh, and "ad homenim."   You might try "strawman fallacy" and "deflection" too.  Then you'll know the terms for the arguments you are making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's not working? Countries with strict regulations have a much lower number of gun deaths. Pretty simple concept actually.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> So what's not working? Countries with strict regulations have a much lower number of gun deaths. Pretty simple concept actually.



The word isn't "simple" it's "simplistic."  What is the point in my addressing that as I've explained over and over about that the US is different than France and you just ignore every point and just repeat this inane one?  What about actually addressing the arguments and then we build on it instead of just repeating your point that every country is the same and the same solution will work.  Even though as I pointed out we already know it doesn't work here.   And all you end up doing is funding organized crime while you ensure that only criminals have guns.

You know what is funny though is how the international leftists like you are always saying about Americans that we don't grasp the world is all like us, then you tell everyone we are all like you...


----------



## billyerock1991

easy have all the registered voters in the country who are registered as republicans and independents(who are ashamed republicans) pass a law that says all registered republicans and independents(who are ashamed republicans) have their guns taken away by force if needed... and for those cold dead fingers that's what a bolt cutter is for...


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard appeal to emotion from gun grabbers, with no real plan to prevent criminals from getting or making guns even after they have disarmed all the non governmental law abiding citizens.
> 
> Move to your socialist utopias, please, now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so what's YOUR plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the op.
Click to expand...


You have no plan? Then maybe... how about... like... stfu?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's not working? Countries with strict regulations have a much lower number of gun deaths. Pretty simple concept actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word isn't "simple" it's "simplistic."  What is the point in my addressing that as I've explained over and over about that the US is different than France and you just ignore every point and just repeat this inane one?  What about actually addressing the arguments and then we build on it instead of just repeating your point that every country is the same and the same solution will work.  Even though as I pointed out we already know it doesn't work here.   And all you end up doing is funding organized crime while you ensure that only criminals have guns.
> 
> You know what is funny though is how the international leftists like you are always saying about Americans that we don't grasp the world is all like us, then you tell everyone we are all like you...
Click to expand...


What doesn't work? You don't say, just deflect.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the concept is simple.  Simple and working unfortunately are completely different things.  We try it with drugs and it doesn't work.  "France" isn't an argument.  Joe mentioned that one too.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we want kids to get shot at school.  Google the fallacy "begging the question" to learn what you are doing.  Oh, and "ad homenim."   You might try "strawman fallacy" and "deflection" too.  Then you'll know the terms for the arguments you are making.
> 
> 
> 
> So what's not working? Countries with strict regulations have a much lower number of gun deaths. Pretty simple concept actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not that simple.
> 
> Not every country reports gun crimes in the same manner. For instance in the UK they don't list a gun death as a homicide unless there's a conviction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.
> 
> Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.
> 
> 7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths
Click to expand...


----------



## MonaGonna

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com

England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com
> 
> England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.



Hey stupid, as I have already told your dumbass those countries do not use the same criteria that 
the US does. You're comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com
> 
> England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, as I have already told your dumbass those countries do not use the same criteria that
> the US does. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that they're lying to the tune of 10,000+ gun deaths?


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?
Click to expand...


That's true. The problem with this particular argument is that's true of a lot of objects. Countries with fewer cars have fewer car deaths i would imagine as well, yet you're not suggesting we limit our outright ban those.


----------



## MonaGonna

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never get around the fact that countries with less guns have less guns deaths. No amount of rationalizing about how it's the person, not the gun, will ever bring back all the schoolchildren who were gunned down at school. People like you are part of the problem. Do you at least get that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true. The problem with this particular argument is that's true of a lot of objects. Countries with fewer cars have fewer car deaths i would imagine as well, yet you're not suggesting we limit our outright ban those.
Click to expand...

Then start a thread about that? 

So what's YOUR solution? Do you even have one?


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com
> 
> England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.



Again youu're ignoring the issue. All you care about is guns. You don't seem to care one iota that these countries for some reason have a lot of people mentally prone to violence. Again that's the common denomintor. You asked if we thought something needs to be done about this. I for one said yes and you ignored that.....



> Certainly, but focusing on inanimate objects isn't it. Believe it or not in all these mass killing the common denominator is not guns. The common denominator is a sick mind. Why are we not centering the conversation around that? Why are we not trying to figure out how Adam Lanza mentally got to the point where he felt he had to do this? Why are we not talking aobut ways to keep people this dangerous out of society in general? Why aren't we talking about how these people can be involuntarily commited when they pose this much danger to society. That is where the danger to society is coming from. Not from guns. It's coming from people in a dangerous mental state.



 To me that you would like to just sweep the people with these mental issues under the rug like they don't have an issue that should concern all of us and instead focus on taking guns from innocent people, makes YOU the callous person in my book, not those of us who want are rights defended.


----------



## MonaGonna

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com
> 
> England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again youu're ignoring the issue. All you care about is guns. You don't seem to care one iota that these countries for some reason have a lot of people mentally prone to violence. Again that's the common denomintor. You asked if we thought something needs to be done about this. I for one said yes and you ignored that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly, but focusing on inanimate objects isn't it. Believe it or not in all these mass killing the common denominator is not guns. The common denominator is a sick mind. Why are we not centering the conversation around that? Why are we not trying to figure out how Adam Lanza mentally got to the point where he felt he had to do this? Why are we not talking aobut ways to keep people this dangerous out of society in general? Why aren't we talking about how these people can be involuntarily commited when they pose this much danger to society. That is where the danger to society is coming from. Not from guns. It's coming from people in a dangerous mental state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me that you would rather focus on inanimate objects rather than helping people that are obviously in serious need of it, makes YOU the callous person in my book, not those of us who want are rights defended.
Click to expand...

So your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to treat them all for mental health issues?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com
> 
> England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, as I have already told your dumbass those countries do not use the same criteria that
> the US does. You're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that they're lying to the tune of 10,000+ gun deaths?
Click to expand...


I'm not saying anyone is lying. I'm saying that it's not an accurate comparison when you use results where different criteria are used.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## kaz

billyerock1991 said:


> easy have all the registered voters in the country who are registered as republicans and independents(who are ashamed republicans) pass a law that says all registered republicans and independents(who are ashamed republicans) have their guns taken away by force if needed... and for those cold dead fingers that's what a bolt cutter is for...



And that will fix it because they commit so many of the murders, do they?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so what's YOUR plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no plan? Then maybe... how about... like... stfu?
Click to expand...


I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | theguardian.com
> 
> England and Wales had 41 gun deaths, compared to the US' 9,146. Doesn't get any clearer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again youu're ignoring the issue. All you care about is guns. You don't seem to care one iota that these countries for some reason have a lot of people mentally prone to violence. Again that's the common denomintor. You asked if we thought something needs to be done about this. I for one said yes and you ignored that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly, but focusing on inanimate objects isn't it. Believe it or not in all these mass killing the common denominator is not guns. The common denominator is a sick mind. Why are we not centering the conversation around that? Why are we not trying to figure out how Adam Lanza mentally got to the point where he felt he had to do this? Why are we not talking aobut ways to keep people this dangerous out of society in general? Why aren't we talking about how these people can be involuntarily commited when they pose this much danger to society. That is where the danger to society is coming from. Not from guns. It's coming from people in a dangerous mental state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To me that you would rather focus on inanimate objects rather than helping people that are obviously in serious need of it, makes YOU the callous person in my book, not those of us who want are rights defended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to treat them all for mental health issues?
Click to expand...


No. We establish a policy that keeps guns out of the hands of people with mental issues. That is the common denomintor in all of our mass shootings. They were either severely depressed, bi-polar or schizophrenic. Treating these people by keeping them out of society will go a much longer in reducing gun deaths than the asinine plan of liberals like that we just ban all guns.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's not working? Countries with strict regulations have a much lower number of gun deaths. Pretty simple concept actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word isn't "simple" it's "simplistic."  What is the point in my addressing that as I've explained over and over about that the US is different than France and you just ignore every point and just repeat this inane one?  What about actually addressing the arguments and then we build on it instead of just repeating your point that every country is the same and the same solution will work.  Even though as I pointed out we already know it doesn't work here.   And all you end up doing is funding organized crime while you ensure that only criminals have guns.
> 
> You know what is funny though is how the international leftists like you are always saying about Americans that we don't grasp the world is all like us, then you tell everyone we are all like you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What doesn't work? You don't say, just deflect.
Click to expand...


How after all these pages are you not even following the conversation?  Strict gun laws don't work.  We have lots of them, all they have done is ensure that criminals are the only ones with guns when the shooting starts.  The areas with the strictest gun laws have the most murders, Chicago, DC.  And drugs are outright illegal and anyone can get them anywhere.  BTW, my daughter lives in France, she is offered pot & other drugs all the time.  Seems the laws aren't working so well there either.

Also as I pointed out, the Mexican border is wide open.  The left demonize anyone who wants to change that.  They even want to set up water stations with a guarantee not to detain anyone for people running across the desert so they don't get dehydrated.  Seriously.  You can't make this up.

Again, what about this confuses you?  No matter how many times I tell you these things, you're like what?  You don't have a plan.  Why won't they work?  Do you even read posts you're responding to?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word isn't "simple" it's "simplistic."  What is the point in my addressing that as I've explained over and over about that the US is different than France and you just ignore every point and just repeat this inane one?  What about actually addressing the arguments and then we build on it instead of just repeating your point that every country is the same and the same solution will work.  Even though as I pointed out we already know it doesn't work here.   And all you end up doing is funding organized crime while you ensure that only criminals have guns.
> 
> You know what is funny though is how the international leftists like you are always saying about Americans that we don't grasp the world is all like us, then you tell everyone we are all like you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What doesn't work? You don't say, just deflect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How after all these pages are you not even following the conversation?  Strict gun laws don't work.  We have lots of them, all they have done is ensure that criminals are the only ones with guns when the shooting starts.  The areas with the strictest gun laws have the most murders, Chicago, DC.  And drugs are outright illegal and anyone can get them anywhere.  BTW, my daughter lives in France, she is offered pot & other drugs all the time.  Seems the laws aren't working so well there either.
> 
> Also as I pointed out, the Mexican border is wide open.  The left demonize anyone who wants to change that.  They even want to set up water stations with a guarantee not to detain anyone for people running across the desert so they don't get dehydrated.  Seriously.  You can't make this up.
> 
> Again, what about this confuses you?  No matter how many times I tell you these things, you're like what?  You don't have a plan.  Why won't they work?  Do you even read posts you're responding to?
Click to expand...

You have strict gun laws. LOL!!!!! Now THAT'S funny! 

And we shouldn't regulate guns and bullets because your daughter gets offered weed in France?


----------



## MonaGonna

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again youu're ignoring the issue. All you care about is guns. You don't seem to care one iota that these countries for some reason have a lot of people mentally prone to violence. Again that's the common denomintor. You asked if we thought something needs to be done about this. I for one said yes and you ignored that.....
> 
> 
> 
> To me that you would rather focus on inanimate objects rather than helping people that are obviously in serious need of it, makes YOU the callous person in my book, not those of us who want are rights defended.
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to treat them all for mental health issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We establish a policy that keeps guns out of the hands of people with mental issues. That is the common denomintor in all of our mass shootings. They were either severely depressed, bi-polar or schizophrenic. Treating these people by keeping them out of society will go a much longer in reducing gun deaths than the asinine plan of liberals like that we just ban all guns.
Click to expand...

I never said ban all guns. 

So your plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands is to take depressed people out of society and lock them up forever?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the op.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no plan? Then maybe... how about... like... stfu?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
Click to expand...


So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no plan? Then maybe... how about... like... stfu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment is your protection, dumbass!


----------



## candycorn

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no plan? Then maybe... how about... like... stfu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
Click to expand...


Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no plan? Then maybe... how about... like... stfu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
Click to expand...


That's your plan actually.  Government does not, can not and should not "protect" people preemptively.  That requires them to have massive powers to decide who is a threat.

Your solution is to wait until a murder is committed then have government draw a chalk line around the body and make a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it.

Your plan is to preemptively make sure that criminals are safe when they murder people.  I'm not seeing the virtue in that.  Explain.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?
Click to expand...


A criminal shoots an honest citizen, an honest citizen shoots a criminal.  It's all the same to you really, they are both people....


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to treat them all for mental health issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We establish a policy that keeps guns out of the hands of people with mental issues. That is the common denomintor in all of our mass shootings. They were either severely depressed, bi-polar or schizophrenic. Treating these people by keeping them out of society will go a much longer in reducing gun deaths than the asinine plan of liberals like that we just ban all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said ban all guns.
> 
> So your plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands is to take depressed people out of society and lock them up forever?
Click to expand...


My plan would be we have a policy that allows us to remove people that are danger to themselves or others from society. We used to be able to do that you know. It is far better than your plan than not addressing the mental issues that are a key component in all of these mass shootings. You would rather just ignore these people and pretend they have nothing to do with the problem and that the real problem is people who had nothing to do with those events wanting to keep their guns. I'm not the cuckoo one here.


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?
Click to expand...


Congratulations. You're catching on. Except actually in your world I guess they are responsible for not clairvoyantly predicting when they'd get attacked and thus contacting the cops in time.


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is your protection, dumbass!
Click to expand...

The 2nd amendment protects people's right to own a gun and shoot me. Nice.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is your protection, dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd amendment protects people's right to own a gun and shoot me. Nice.
Click to expand...


No, the 2nd Amendment protects your right to shoot back.

You're still on the fantasy point that criminals won't break the law and buy a gun if they are illegal.   Grow up Virginia, criminals even break the law in France.  That is the common thing on all the shooting rampages.  The criminals had guns, the victims didn't.

Did you know it's actually against the law already to go on shooting rampages?  Maybe since you believe criminals won't break the law, you should just start a campaign to inform criminals that it's illegal to shoot people so they won't do it.

What color is the sky in your world?  In candycane's it's cotton candy...


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, as I have already told your dumbass those countries do not use the same criteria that
> the US does. You're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that they're lying to the tune of 10,000+ gun deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying anyone is lying. I'm saying that it's not an accurate comparison when you use results where different criteria are used.
> 
> Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that 10,000 people in England and Wales got killed by guns but weren't counted because they got off?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is your protection, dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment protects people's right to own a gun and shoot me. Nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still on the fantasy point that criminals won't break the law and buy a gun if they are illegal.   Grow up Virginia, criminals even break the law in France.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment protects your right to shoot back.
Click to expand...


41 guns deaths in England and Wales versus 9,146 in the US. 2 nod amendment doesn't work.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is your protection, dumbass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd amendment protects people's right to own a gun and shoot me. Nice.
Click to expand...


It gives you the right to defend yourself, your family and your property. I don't expect an idiot such as yourself to understand.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that they're lying to the tune of 10,000+ gun deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying anyone is lying. I'm saying that it's not an accurate comparison when you use results where different criteria are used.
> 
> Do try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying that 10,000 people in England and Wales got killed by guns but weren't counted because they got off?
Click to expand...


No I didn't say that either.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal shoots an honest citizen, an honest citizen shoots a criminal.  It's all the same to you really, they are both people....
Click to expand...


I would prerfer nobody gets shot.

However I do think that if society has done such a terrible job protecting the innocent that society owes at least the effort to rectify the situation...

Since you're into mis-characterizing my stances so often despite my correcting you; can I just assume that you're stance is this when you bow down and talk to the fallen 8 year old girl who was just shot by a felon with a gun bought through a loophole.

"Tough luck girl...next time invest in a Kevlar school uniform."  

Does that sum up your position right?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated my plan over and over.  Follow the Constitution, allow people the right to defend themselves, once someone commits a crime with a gun put them in prison and keep them there.  What about that confuses you exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your plan actually.  Government does not, can not and should not "protect" people preemptively.  That requires them to have massive powers to decide who is a threat.
> 
> Your solution is to wait until a murder is committed then have government draw a chalk line around the body and make a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it.
> 
> Your plan is to preemptively make sure that criminals are safe when they murder people.  I'm not seeing the virtue in that.  Explain.
Click to expand...


So no pre-emptive action? Like in Iraq or as is being talked about for Iran? 

My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.


----------



## candycorn

Bern80 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Congratulations. You're catching on*. Except actually in your world I guess they are responsible for not clairvoyantly predicting when they'd get attacked and thus contacting the cops in time.
Click to expand...


Never go full retard...  Ooops too late in your case.


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying anyone is lying. I'm saying that it's not an accurate comparison when you use results where different criteria are used.
> 
> Do try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that 10,000 people in England and Wales got killed by guns but weren't counted because they got off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't say that either.
Click to expand...


So why is 41 deaths against 9,146 in the US bogus? Seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal shoots an honest citizen, an honest citizen shoots a criminal.  It's all the same to you really, they are both people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would prerfer nobody gets shot.
> 
> However I do think that if society has done such a terrible job protecting the innocent that society owes at least the effort to rectify the situation...
> 
> Since you're into mis-characterizing my stances so often despite my correcting you; can I just assume that you're stance is this when you bow down and talk to the fallen 8 year old girl who was just shot by a felon with a gun bought through a loophole.
> 
> "Tough luck girl...next time invest in a Kevlar school uniform."
> 
> Does that sum up your position right?
Click to expand...


I can only your assume to the families of the dead in Aurora Colorado, Newton Connecticut, the Virginia Tech Campus, Columbine, the Washington Naval yard and the families of murder victims in Chicago, Detroit, DC and other battle zones where criminals had guns and the victims followed the law and didn't is "tough luck your father, husband and/or kids are dead...next time invest in Kevlar clothing.

Does that sum up your position right?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your plan actually.  Government does not, can not and should not "protect" people preemptively.  That requires them to have massive powers to decide who is a threat.
> 
> Your solution is to wait until a murder is committed then have government draw a chalk line around the body and make a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it.
> 
> Your plan is to preemptively make sure that criminals are safe when they murder people.  I'm not seeing the virtue in that.  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no pre-emptive action? Like in Iraq or as is being talked about for Iran?
Click to expand...

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican.  Though all liberals hear is "not-liberal" so that's going to go way over year head.



MonaGonna said:


> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users.



I'll fix that for you:  My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of honest citizens so  drug users don't need to worry about anyone shooting back at them when they commit crimes.



MonaGonna said:


> I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.



You'd limit legal sales to legal people.  You have no plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals at all except your belief that criminals won't break the law.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that 10,000 people in England and Wales got killed by guns but weren't counted because they got off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't say that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is 41 deaths against 9,146 in the US bogus? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...


Because in your bigotry you can't be bothered learning either the different way those statistics are calculated or the differences between the United States and the United Kingdom.  

Then be honest, you mock Americans for not recognizing the world is diverse, don't you?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your plan actually.  Government does not, can not and should not "protect" people preemptively.  That requires them to have massive powers to decide who is a threat.
> 
> Your solution is to wait until a murder is committed then have government draw a chalk line around the body and make a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it.
> 
> Your plan is to preemptively make sure that criminals are safe when they murder people.  I'm not seeing the virtue in that.  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no pre-emptive action? Like in Iraq or as is being talked about for Iran?
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
Click to expand...


Specifically how would you keep "all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users"?

And how would you go about regulating gun sales and the number of rounds a person could buy per year?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that 10,000 people in England and Wales got killed by guns but weren't counted because they got off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't say that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is 41 deaths against 9,146 in the US bogus? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...


I already told you. Two different criteria were used in those stats.

You have got to be the dullest knife in the drawer. 

Are you TM by any chance?


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment protects people's right to own a gun and shoot me. Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on the fantasy point that criminals won't break the law and buy a gun if they are illegal.   Grow up Virginia, criminals even break the law in France.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment protects your right to shoot back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 41 guns deaths in England and Wales versus 9,146 in the US. 2 nod amendment doesn't work.
Click to expand...


how many gun deaths were there in england before they passed their laws?  Looks like the numbers have nothing to do with the laws.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically how would you keep "all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users"?
Click to expand...


This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?



Lonestar_logic said:


> And how would you go about regulating gun sales and the number of rounds a person could buy per year?



I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.

Makes perfect sense to me...


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your plan is to do nothing pre-emptive, just cleaning up the blood afterwards. Wow! That's a great constitution you have there, no protection!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your plan actually.  Government does not, can not and should not "protect" people preemptively.  That requires them to have massive powers to decide who is a threat.
> 
> Your solution is to wait until a murder is committed then have government draw a chalk line around the body and make a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it.
> 
> Your plan is to preemptively make sure that criminals are safe when they murder people.  I'm not seeing the virtue in that.  Explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no pre-emptive action? Like in Iraq or as is being talked about for Iran?
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
Click to expand...


how many drug dealers do you think actually buy their guns off the shelf anyway? 

ok, so i make my own bullets.  its really east to do.  how are you going to keep bullets out of my hands?


----------



## MonaGonna

Spoonman said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still on the fantasy point that criminals won't break the law and buy a gun if they are illegal.   Grow up Virginia, criminals even break the law in France.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment protects your right to shoot back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 41 guns deaths in England and Wales versus 9,146 in the US. 2 nod amendment doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many gun deaths were there in england before they passed their laws?  Looks like the numbers have nothing to do with the laws.
Click to expand...

It must be really hard to have to go through life being so stupid. How sad.


----------



## MonaGonna

Spoonman said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your plan actually.  Government does not, can not and should not "protect" people preemptively.  That requires them to have massive powers to decide who is a threat.
> 
> Your solution is to wait until a murder is committed then have government draw a chalk line around the body and make a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it.
> 
> Your plan is to preemptively make sure that criminals are safe when they murder people.  I'm not seeing the virtue in that.  Explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no pre-emptive action? Like in Iraq or as is being talked about for Iran?
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many drug dealers do you think actually buy their guns off the shelf anyway?
> 
> ok, so i make my own bullets.  its really east to do.  how are you going to keep bullets out of my hands?
Click to expand...

Most criminals are too dumb to make bullets. This thread is about keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Are you a criminal?


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically how would you keep "all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you go about regulating gun sales and the number of rounds a person could buy per year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
Click to expand...


the irony is someone who target shoots and doesn't kill anyone is the one buying all the bullets.  I go through a few thousand rounds a month.  but the person who is going to kill someone can get the job done with a single box of bullets.    once again these anti gun nuts are totally missing the issue and proposing solutions that impact only the innocent law abiding citizens.   We can never let democrats gain control of our government or we will be impacted negatively


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't say that either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why is 41 deaths against 9,146 in the US bogus? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Two different criteria were used in those stats.
> 
> You have got to be the dullest knife in the drawer.
> 
> Are you TM by any chance?
Click to expand...

So how many people died by a gun in England and Wales. Since you seem to know that 41 is wrong.


----------



## MonaGonna

Spoonman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically how would you keep "all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you go about regulating gun sales and the number of rounds a person could buy per year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the irony is someone who target shoots and doesn't kill anyone is the one buying all the bullets.  I go through a few thousand rounds a month.  but the person who is going to kill someone can get the job done with a single box of bullets.    once again these anti gun nuts are totally missing the issue and proposing solutions that impact only the innocent law abiding citizens.   We can never let democrats gain control of our government or we will be impacted negatively
Click to expand...

A few thousand rounds A MONTH!


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is 41 deaths against 9,146 in the US bogus? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. Two different criteria were used in those stats.
> 
> You have got to be the dullest knife in the drawer.
> 
> Are you TM by any chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how many people died by a gun in England and Wales. Since you seem to know that 41 is wrong.
Click to expand...


How many times have you been told that they only count convictions?  Do you seriously have no long term memory?


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no pre-emptive action? Like in Iraq or as is being talked about for Iran?
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many drug dealers do you think actually buy their guns off the shelf anyway?
> 
> ok, so i make my own bullets.  its really east to do.  how are you going to keep bullets out of my hands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most criminals are too dumb to make bullets. This thread is about keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Are you a criminal?
Click to expand...


do you even know how to have a bullet? do you have any idea how easy it is?  do you have any idea of the black market opportunity all of your solutions provide?


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the irony is someone who target shoots and doesn't kill anyone is the one buying all the bullets.  I go through a few thousand rounds a month.  but the person who is going to kill someone can get the job done with a single box of bullets.    once again these anti gun nuts are totally missing the issue and proposing solutions that impact only the innocent law abiding citizens.   We can never let democrats gain control of our government or we will be impacted negatively
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few thousand rounds A MONTH!
Click to expand...


easily


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. Two different criteria were used in those stats.
> 
> You have got to be the dullest knife in the drawer.
> 
> Are you TM by any chance?
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people died by a gun in England and Wales. Since you seem to know that 41 is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have you been told that they only count convictions?  Do you seriously have no long term memory?
Click to expand...


So if you think 41is wrong, what's the real number?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how many people died by a gun in England and Wales. Since you seem to know that 41 is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you been told that they only count convictions?  Do you seriously have no long term memory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you think 41is wrong, what's the real number?
Click to expand...


So you believe that when other people tell you that you used the wrong stat and why, they should also research the correct stat you meant to use for you.

Well, at least this explains why you can't go back and read the first post in the thread so you know what it's about...

The actual number is irrelevant to my argument.  I've said the US is not the same as the UK.  The most obvious starting point being they don't have an open border with Mexico which is maintained as open by the party of our President.  Right there any analysis comparing us is hugely flawed.

Our only remaining relevant political party believes al Qaeda should be able to fly to Mexico and walk freely across the border.  Criminals should be free to walk across the border.  Smugglers should be free to carry drugs, guns and ammunition across the border.

And we have more crime and murders?  No shit...


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you been told that they only count convictions?  Do you seriously have no long term memory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you think 41is wrong, what's the real number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that when other people tell you that you used the wrong stat and why, they should also research the correct stat you meant to use for you.
> 
> Well, at least this explains why you can't go back and read the first post in the thread so you know what it's about...
> 
> The actual number is irrelevant to my argument.  I've said the US is not the same as the UK.  The most obvious starting point being they don't have an open border with Mexico which is maintained as open by the party of our President.  Right there any analysis comparing us is hugely flawed.
> 
> Our only remaining relevant political party believes al Qaeda should be able to fly to Mexico and walk freely across the border.  Criminals should be free to walk across the border.  Smugglers should be free to carry drugs, guns and ammunition across the border.
> 
> And we have more crime and murders?  No shit...
Click to expand...


So the higher number of gun deaths in the US is Mexico's fault? 

If you can't provide an accurate number other than 41 with a link, it stands.


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you think 41is wrong, what's the real number?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that when other people tell you that you used the wrong stat and why, they should also research the correct stat you meant to use for you.
> 
> Well, at least this explains why you can't go back and read the first post in the thread so you know what it's about...
> 
> The actual number is irrelevant to my argument.  I've said the US is not the same as the UK.  The most obvious starting point being they don't have an open border with Mexico which is maintained as open by the party of our President.  Right there any analysis comparing us is hugely flawed.
> 
> Our only remaining relevant political party believes al Qaeda should be able to fly to Mexico and walk freely across the border.  Criminals should be free to walk across the border.  Smugglers should be free to carry drugs, guns and ammunition across the border.
> 
> And we have more crime and murders?  No shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the higher number of gun deaths in the US is Mexico's fault?
> 
> If you can't provide an accurate number other than 41 with a link, it stands.
Click to expand...


you do realize that gun death rates in the USA have dropped at the same rate or better since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire as rates in the UK have dropped since you enacted strict gun laws.   your gun laws have been no more effective at reducing gun deaths


----------



## Bern80

candycorn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who gets shot is responsible for not shooting the other guy first...don't you get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Congratulations. You're catching on*. Except actually in your world I guess they are responsible for not clairvoyantly predicting when they'd get attacked and thus contacting the cops in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never go full retard...  Ooops too late in yoru case.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one with the misguided over reaction to the problem.


----------



## BlackSand

kaz said:


> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...



The interesting part is that to Liberals the theory makes sense even more than it does to gun owners.
Legislation was suggested by Democrats that would limit the magazine size to 5-10 bullets off the range (varies with different state legislation proposals) ... But allow up to 15 bullets while on the range.

Simple logic examining these proposals leads one to believe that paper targets are a greater threat than someone breaking into your house ... Therefor you need more bullets to defend yourself at the range with all those other gun owners.
Records show that the local shooting range just ordered a box of 1000 targets ... And we all know it takes about 5 shots to kill those things ... I hope we can find enough ammo to stave off the invasion.

.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you think 41is wrong, what's the real number?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that when other people tell you that you used the wrong stat and why, they should also research the correct stat you meant to use for you.
> 
> Well, at least this explains why you can't go back and read the first post in the thread so you know what it's about...
> 
> The actual number is irrelevant to my argument.  I've said the US is not the same as the UK.  The most obvious starting point being they don't have an open border with Mexico which is maintained as open by the party of our President.  Right there any analysis comparing us is hugely flawed.
> 
> Our only remaining relevant political party believes al Qaeda should be able to fly to Mexico and walk freely across the border.  Criminals should be free to walk across the border.  Smugglers should be free to carry drugs, guns and ammunition across the border.
> 
> And we have more crime and murders?  No shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the higher number of gun deaths in the US is Mexico's fault?
Click to expand...

You really have no grasp of simple logic at all.  I'm starting to wonder about lonestar's TM theory.  I've seriously trying not to call you stupid, but wow, you are stupid.

For anyone not stupid reading this, what comes through Mexico is responsible for a lot of US crime, but no, that's not the relevant point here.  The point is that your claim that gun laws will work is completely belied by how simple it is for guns and ammo to enter the country



MonaGonna said:


> If you can't provide an accurate number other than 41 with a link, it stands.



Right, it's people's job to prove your stats wrong, not your job to prove them correct.  Good luck getting anyone to care..


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many drug dealers do you think actually buy their guns off the shelf anyway?
> 
> ok, so i make my own bullets.  its really east to do.  how are you going to keep bullets out of my hands?
> 
> 
> 
> Most criminals are too dumb to make bullets. This thread is about keeping guns out of criminals' hands. Are you a criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you even know how to have a bullet? do you have any idea how easy it is?  do you have any idea of the black market opportunity all of your solutions provide?
Click to expand...


Far better to fund organized crime by letting them sell bullets then an evil gun company run by a ... CEO ...  don't you think?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that when other people tell you that you used the wrong stat and why, they should also research the correct stat you meant to use for you.
> 
> Well, at least this explains why you can't go back and read the first post in the thread so you know what it's about...
> 
> The actual number is irrelevant to my argument.  I've said the US is not the same as the UK.  The most obvious starting point being they don't have an open border with Mexico which is maintained as open by the party of our President.  Right there any analysis comparing us is hugely flawed.
> 
> Our only remaining relevant political party believes al Qaeda should be able to fly to Mexico and walk freely across the border.  Criminals should be free to walk across the border.  Smugglers should be free to carry drugs, guns and ammunition across the border.
> 
> And we have more crime and murders?  No shit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the higher number of gun deaths in the US is Mexico's fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have no grasp of simple logic at all.  I'm starting to wonder about lonestar's TM theory.  I've seriously trying not to call you stupid, but wow, you are stupid.
> 
> For anyone not stupid reading this, what comes through Mexico is responsible for a lot of US crime, but no, that's not the relevant point here.  The point is that your claim that gun laws will work is completely belied by how simple it is for guns and ammo to enter the country
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't provide an accurate number other than 41 with a link, it stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, it's people's job to prove your stats wrong, not your job to prove them correct.  Good luck getting anyone to care..
Click to expand...


It was from the guardian, not my stats, so they are already checked. Sorry, you lose.
So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's people's job to prove your stats wrong, not your job to prove them correct.  Good luck getting anyone to care..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was from the guardian, not my stats, so they are already checked. Sorry, you lose.
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
Click to expand...


They told you what's wrong with your stats.

Did you notice according to the guardian that in the UK, 6.6% of deaths are by firearm, and in the US 60% are.  I thought you kept telling us nobody could figure out another way to kill anyone, so all those people would be alive now?  What's up with that?



MonaGonna said:


> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.


Strawman.  Seriously, are you actually TM?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> My plan would keep assault weapons off the shelves and all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users. I'd limit gun sales to one every ten years and regulate the number of bullets you could buy per year... Your plan lets anyone buy anything anytime and end up with 9,000+ gun deaths per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically how would you keep "all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you go about regulating gun sales and the number of rounds a person could buy per year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
Click to expand...


I knew I wasn't going to get any sane response about the specifics. Bottom line is she wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment and ban ALL guns. As if that's going to keep the disturbed from killing or robbing anyone. 

Liberals like her cannot see that the places that have the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest murder rates.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is 41 deaths against 9,146 in the US bogus? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you. Two different criteria were used in those stats.
> 
> You have got to be the dullest knife in the drawer.
> 
> Are you TM by any chance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how many people died by a gun in England and Wales. Since you seem to know that 41 is wrong.
Click to expand...


You are one stupid fuck.


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically how would you keep "all guns and bullets out of the hands of drug users"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you go about regulating gun sales and the number of rounds a person could buy per year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I knew I wasn't going to get any sane response about the specifics. Bottom line is she wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment and ban ALL guns. As if that's going to keep the disturbed from killing or robbing anyone.
> 
> Liberals like her cannot see that the places that have the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest murder rates.
Click to expand...


Show me where I said to ban all guns or sftu, you noob.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, it's people's job to prove your stats wrong, not your job to prove them correct.  Good luck getting anyone to care..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was from the guardian, not my stats, so they are already checked. Sorry, you lose.
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They told you what's wrong with your stats.
> 
> Did you notice according to the guardian that in the UK, 6.6% of deaths are by firearm, and in the US 60% are.  I thought you kept telling us nobody could figure out another way to kill anyone, so all those people would be alive now?  What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman.  Seriously, are you actually TM?
Click to expand...


Never said what you claim I said.

So what is your solution? No wait, you have none, you're happy with 9000 deaths a year by gun.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew I wasn't going to get any sane response about the specifics. Bottom line is she wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment and ban ALL guns. As if that's going to keep the disturbed from killing or robbing anyone.
> 
> Liberals like her cannot see that the places that have the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest murder rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where I said to ban all guns or sftu, you noob.
Click to expand...


You didn't have to say it. It's evident by your post.

I've been here since 2009 and you call me a noob?

More proof of your stupidity.


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal shoots an honest citizen, an honest citizen shoots a criminal.  It's all the same to you really, they are both people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would prerfer nobody gets shot.
> 
> However I do think that if society has done such a terrible job protecting the innocent that society owes at least the effort to rectify the situation...
> 
> Since you're into mis-characterizing my stances so often despite my correcting you; can I just assume that you're stance is this when you bow down and talk to the fallen 8 year old girl who was just shot by a felon with a gun bought through a loophole.
> 
> "Tough luck girl...next time invest in a Kevlar school uniform."
> 
> Does that sum up your position right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only your assume to the families of the dead in Aurora Colorado, Newton Connecticut, the Virginia Tech Campus, Columbine, the Washington Naval yard and the families of murder victims in Chicago, Detroit, DC and other battle zones where criminals had guns and the victims followed the law and didn't is "tough luck your father, husband and/or kids are dead...next time invest in Kevlar clothing.
> 
> Does that sum up your position right?
Click to expand...


Try writing a sentence that makes sense and I'll comment.  Or stop mis-characterizing my position after I've corrected you three times.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the funniest part of her argument.  Drugs are illegal, so drug users, who are breaking the law by buying drugs, which are illegal, won't buy guns if they are illegal.  And the people who sell illegal drugs won't think of selling illegal guns while they're selling illegal drugs.  You're saying that doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew I wasn't going to get any sane response about the specifics. Bottom line is she wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment and ban ALL guns. As if that's going to keep the disturbed from killing or robbing anyone.
> 
> Liberals like her cannot see that the places that have the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest murder rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where I said to ban all guns or sftu, you noob.
Click to expand...


Ironic that you used the term noob wrong.  That's actually pretty funny...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would prerfer nobody gets shot.
> 
> However I do think that if society has done such a terrible job protecting the innocent that society owes at least the effort to rectify the situation...
> Since you're into mis-characterizing my stances so often despite my correcting you; I can just assume that you're stance is this when you bow down and talk to the fallen 8 year old girl who was just shot by a felon with a gun bought through a loophole.
> 
> "Tough luck girl...next time invest in a Kevlar school uniform."
> 
> Does that sum up your position right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only your assume to the families of the dead in Aurora Colorado, Newton Connecticut, the Virginia Tech Campus, Columbine, the Washington Naval yard and the families of murder victims in Chicago, Detroit, DC and other battle zones where criminals had guns and the victims followed the law and didn't is "tough luck your father, husband and/or kids are dead...next time invest in Kevlar clothing.
> 
> Does that sum up your position right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try writing a sentence that makes sense and I'll comment.  Or stop mis-characterizing my position after I've corrected you three times.
Click to expand...


How dare I mischaracterize your position while you mischaracterize mine?  Shame on me.  Bad kaz!



You say things like you would prefer nobody gets shot as if that's a difference in our views.  The question is that criminals have guns, what are we going to do about it?   If you were coherent in your arguments, I would probably follow them better.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was from the guardian, not my stats, so they are already checked. Sorry, you lose.
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They told you what's wrong with your stats.
> 
> Did you notice according to the guardian that in the UK, 6.6% of deaths are by firearm, and in the US 60% are.  I thought you kept telling us nobody could figure out another way to kill anyone, so all those people would be alive now?  What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman.  Seriously, are you actually TM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said what you claim I said.
Click to expand...


I made the wild leap that you were against all murders, I stand corrected.



MonaGonna said:


> So what is your solution? No wait, you have none, you're happy with 9000 deaths a year by gun.



Your plan is to make sure that the 9,000 people don't have a gun, you have no plan to do anything about the 9,000 people who killed them.  So you're the one who's apparently OK with the 9,000 people being murdered by gun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was from the guardian, not my stats, so they are already checked. Sorry, you lose.
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They told you what's wrong with your stats.
> 
> Did you notice according to the guardian that in the UK, 6.6% of deaths are by firearm, and in the US 60% are.  I thought you kept telling us nobody could figure out another way to kill anyone, so all those people would be alive now?  What's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your solution is to do nothing, because there's no proper border with Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman.  Seriously, are you actually TM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said what you claim I said.
> 
> So what is your solution? No wait, you have none, you're happy with 9000 deaths a year by gun.
Click to expand...


You have not presented a single concept that would disarm criminals. Every one of the suggestions and demands made by you and the far left disarm law abiding citizens and do NOTHING about illegally obtained firearms. None of the suggestions or demands prevent criminals from smuggling in new weapons and ammunition.


----------



## MisterBeale

Ha ha, HERE is a liberal plan once all the guns are out of society and the criminals are victimizing people. . . tell them that big brother is watching them!







*D.C. woman convinces mugger the NSA is watching*



> On Monday night in Washington, D.C., a woman walking to her Capitol Hill townhouse was grabbed by a man who told her to give him her wallet and phone. But where most of us would have happily parted with our possessions in order to escape unharmed, this victim took a different tack: She claimed to work for the National Security Agency, and that the agency would trace her phone if she lost it.
> 
> Pretending to be an NSA intern was the first strategy she could think of, she later told the Washington Examiner. The story simultaneously explained why she had no cash on herpainting herself as an unpaid employeeand put the paranoia of government surveillance into the mugger, with the chilling suggestion that the NSA could cause problems for him down the line if he didnt walk away. After brief consideration, he did.



http://www.dailydot.com/crime/dc-woman-mugger-nsa-watching/


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They told you what's wrong with your stats.
> 
> Did you notice according to the guardian that in the UK, 6.6% of deaths are by firearm, and in the US 60% are.  I thought you kept telling us nobody could figure out another way to kill anyone, so all those people would be alive now?  What's up with that?
> 
> 
> Strawman.  Seriously, are you actually TM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said what you claim I said.
> 
> So what is your solution? No wait, you have none, you're happy with 9000 deaths a year by gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not presented a single concept that would disarm criminals. Every one of the suggestions and demands made by you and the far left disarm law abiding citizens and do NOTHING about illegally obtained firearms. None of the suggestions or demands prevent criminals from smuggling in new weapons and ammunition.
Click to expand...


Sure I did, a few times. You just think that things are great the way they are, 9,000+ gun deaths a year. Me, I don't care, I don't live in a gun crazy country like you do.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that there are tons of guns out there now, but close the barn door, and eventually guns won't work, will get thrown in the water, will make it into Mexico... and over time, the supply of guns out there will keep going down. Have to do something, c'mon. Plus regulate bullets a lot better?
> 
> And Bern, YOU should go get yourself checked for mental health problems, just to be sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to prevent guns from coming in and replacing them?
> 
> The Left want free flow of illegal immigration, so they just walk across the border. Criminals, drugs, they all come with them.  They are coming now, seriously, bringing guns and using/selling them wouldn't occur to them?  Criminals won't just go across the border and walk back either?
> 
> Seriously, read ... the ... op.  What scares you about doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a pretty simple concept actually. Lots of countries around the world regulate guns pretty heavily and all of them have gun deaths lower than the US. Gun nuts must want kids to get shot at school?
Click to expand...

Thank you for helping to prove my point.  Well done.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things can be done. Enforce current laws if you catch a felon with a firearm. Create a system where mentally deficient people are adjudicated and prevented from owning firearms. Increase penalties for committing crimes with a firearm. Allow people who have CCW's to carry their weapons except in controlled perimeter locations.
> 
> All of these can be done without infringing on my right to own a firearm, and would actually do something to reduce *gun violence*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *gun violence* gawd-a-mighty how i do hate that term
> i have never seen a violent gun in all my 60+ years of owning one, could you provide a photo of a  * violent gun * just so i can avoid one if one comes my way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All guns are violent. They're made to kill. That's their only purpose.
Click to expand...

More proof of my pont.  Thank you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> All guns are violent. They're made to kill. That's their only purpose. Geez, what a noob. No wonder there are so many gun deaths in the US, with duffusses like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
Click to expand...



>300,000,000 guns.
<32,000 gun deaths per year
~1 gun in every 9400 kills someone - and that, to you, is proof that people are not trustworthy with guns.



Thank you for futher provng my point.


----------



## Geaux4it

Simple solution, buy all the guns you can. Kill more bad guys than they do good guys

Simple math

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

*David Gregory got away with it *

special treatment for the party members 

not so much for the ordinary citizens

Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.

The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witaschek&#8217;s Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for &#8220;firearms and ammunition &#8230; gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.&#8221;

Mr. Witaschek&#8217;s 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.


D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.

Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek&#8217;s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.

After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.

In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.

His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. &#8220;They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,&#8221; said his father. &#8220;The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.&#8221;

MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing - Washington Times


----------



## MonaGonna

M14 Shooter said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> >300,000,000 guns.
> <32,000 gun deaths per year
> ~1 gun in every 9400 kills someone - and that, to you, is proof that people are not trustworthy with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for futher provng my point.
Click to expand...


So I guess that you laugh at little kids who shoot themselves or their friends/siblings. Or at mass school shootings. Is 9,000+ gun deaths a year an acceptable number for you?


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thier purpose is to propel a projectile via chemical explosive combustion. The person is who decides what the purpose of the projectile is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
Click to expand...


Again, isn't that kind of like saying, "only 4 planes out of hundreds of thousands in the air were flown into buildings, we really dont need to be worried about hijacking?"


----------



## JoeB131

Geaux4it said:


> Simple solution, buy all the guns you can. Kill more bad guys than they do good guys
> 
> Simple math
> 
> -Geaux



Since most gun deaths are suicides, domestic violence and accidents, the good guys are doing a pretty good job of killing them themselves off.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the rounds fired through guns every year, how many result in death or injury? I have a feeling is a very small percentage, on the order of 10 or so zeros after the decimal point, followed by a 1.
> 
> JoeB is this you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, isn't that kind of like saying, "only 4 planes out of hundreds of thousands in the air were flown into buildings, we really dont need to be worried about hijacking?"
Click to expand...


Do we go around talking about banning planes for everyone except governmental agents?


----------



## martybegan

jon_berzerk said:


> *David Gregory got away with it *
> 
> special treatment for the party members
> 
> not so much for the ordinary citizens
> 
> Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.
> 
> The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witascheks Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for firearms and ammunition  gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.
> 
> Mr. Witascheks 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.
> 
> 
> D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
> 
> Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witascheks estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
> 
> After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.
> 
> In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.
> 
> His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked, said his father. The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.
> 
> MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing - Washington Times



And THIS is why we do not trust gun control people. Its not about crime, its about government power and abuse.

The police chief should be sued, the officers should be sued, and everyone needs to be fired. The police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants who have obviously forgotten both the civil and the servant parts.


----------



## jon_berzerk

martybegan said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *David Gregory got away with it *
> 
> special treatment for the party members
> 
> not so much for the ordinary citizens
> 
> Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.
> 
> The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witascheks Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for firearms and ammunition  gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.
> 
> Mr. Witascheks 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.
> 
> 
> D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
> 
> Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witascheks estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
> 
> After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.
> 
> In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.
> 
> His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked, said his father. The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.
> 
> MILLER: D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing - Washington Times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And THIS is why we do not trust gun control people. Its not about crime, its about government power and abuse.
> 
> The police chief should be sued, the officers should be sued, and everyone needs to be fired. The police are not our lords and masters, they are civil servants who have obviously forgotten both the civil and the servant parts.
Click to expand...


it is obvious that how tyrannical the government becomes 

there are others who will willfully go along with it


----------



## Wildman

BlackSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interesting part is that to Liberals the theory makes sense even more than it does to gun owners.
> Legislation was suggested by Democrats that would limit the magazine size to 5-10 bullets off the range (varies with different state legislation proposals) ... But allow up to 15 bullets while on the range.
> 
> Simple logic examining these proposals leads one to believe that paper targets are a greater threat than someone breaking into your house ... Therefor you need more bullets to defend yourself at the range with all those other gun owners.
> Records show that the local shooting range just ordered a box of 1000 targets ... And we all know it takes about 5 shots to kill those things ... I hope we can find enough ammo to stave off the invasion.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


some folks are confusing bullets with cartridges, i use bullets for reloading to make a complete cartridge, let's get the terminology correct. OK ?


----------



## Edgetho

projectiles?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wildman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the theory here is that criminals will use up their bullets on the firing range, so by the time they get around to shooting someone they'll be out of bullets.  And by the time the next year rolls around and they can finally get more bullets they won't want to kill them anymore.
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interesting part is that to Liberals the theory makes sense even more than it does to gun owners.
> Legislation was suggested by Democrats that would limit the magazine size to 5-10 bullets off the range (varies with different state legislation proposals) ... But allow up to 15 bullets while on the range.
> 
> Simple logic examining these proposals leads one to believe that paper targets are a greater threat than someone breaking into your house ... Therefor you need more bullets to defend yourself at the range with all those other gun owners.
> Records show that the local shooting range just ordered a box of 1000 targets ... And we all know it takes about 5 shots to kill those things ... I hope we can find enough ammo to stave off the invasion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some folks are confusing bullets with cartridges, i use bullets for reloading to make a complete cartridge, let's get the terminology correct. OK ?
Click to expand...


out here no matter what the feds try and pass on more restrictive gun control 

we passed state laws trumping the feds 

as long as take for example *magazines* 

made in the state and remain in the state 

silencers too 

as well as firearms made in the state 

all stamped *made in South Dakota *


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple solution, buy all the guns you can. Kill more bad guys than they do good guys
> 
> Simple math
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since most gun deaths are suicides, domestic violence and accidents, the good guys are doing a pretty good job of killing them themselves off.
Click to expand...


Most are suicides, so since you included that you can include whatever else you want for the implication you want.  As you did.

Suicides are irrelevant to the discussion.  They are not an argument for your side that it keeps guns from criminals, they are not an argument for our side that it protects people from criminals.  Not having a gun is zero barrier to anyone killing themself.  Focus on the relevant discussion.

Edit:

Suicide rates:

USA - 12 per 100K
UK - 11.8 per 100K

Owned


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?



I believe the HIPAA laws needs to be looked at. I think a doctor should be able to release information about a person with a history of mental illness, with the blessings of the court of course. Then that person would show up on a background check when trying to purchase a firearm. This will not stop the mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms but it will help.

As for the school shooting, you need to get rid of the "no gun zone" and allow teachers and  parents on campus to carry guns as long as the states concealed carry laws are met.

It is naïve to think that all gun deaths can be prevented. They can't, but to quote Thomas Jefferson, "an armed society is a polite society". 


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?



That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?


----------



## MonaGonna

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?
Click to expand...


It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the HIPAA laws needs to be looked at. I think a doctor should be able to release information about a person with a history of mental illness, with the blessings of the court of course. Then that person would show up on a background check when trying to purchase a firearm. This will not stop the mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms but it will help.
> 
> As for the school shooting, you need to get rid of the "no gun zone" and allow teachers and  parents on campus to carry guns as long as the states concealed carry laws are met.
> 
> It is naïve to think that all gun deaths can be prevented. They can't, but to quote Thomas Jefferson, "an armed society is a polite society".
> 
> 
> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,
Click to expand...


You have any relevant quotes that aren't from 200 years ago? Geez, In 1776, people may have needed to be armed at all times, but today? No. Well, now that you have 300,000,000 weapons out there, maybe, but you have to start somewhere... I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the HIPAA laws needs to be looked at. I think a doctor should be able to release information about a person with a history of mental illness, with the blessings of the court of course. Then that person would show up on a background check when trying to purchase a firearm. This will not stop the mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms but it will help.
> 
> As for the school shooting, you need to get rid of the "no gun zone" and allow teachers and  parents on campus to carry guns as long as the states concealed carry laws are met.
> 
> It is naïve to think that all gun deaths can be prevented. They can't, but to quote Thomas Jefferson, "an armed society is a polite society".
> 
> 
> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have any relevant quotes that aren't from 200 years ago? Geez, In 1776, people may have needed to be armed at all times, but today? No. Well, now that you have 300,000,000 weapons out there, maybe, but you have to start somewhere... I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.
Click to expand...


The quotes are still applicable today.

You're missing the point (which is typical for you liberal idiots) you can make a thousand laws making it harder to buy guns, the only people it will affect is law-abiding citizens, criminals by definition DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

The laws currently on the books are not adequate in the sense that it doesn't look at the mental health history of the purchaser, this could be changed by re-writing the HIPAA law and allowing for a person with a history of mental illness to be included in those that cannot legally buy a firearm. Other than that, the background checks are quite adequate.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons?


Your plan is to make sure that when a nut job walks in they can go from room to room blowing people away and not meet any resistance.

You have no plan to get the gun out of the criminals hands other than begging the question by assuming that gun laws will keep the guns out the hands of criminals when they clearly don't.  You just want to make sure the maximum number of teachers and children get blown away.    And your plan is working great.

My plan is to give someone the chance to stop them.



MonaGonna said:


> It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?



As you have no long term memory, your endless discussion on mental health were not me, we've never discussed it.  My view though is I do think we should keep people locked up once they show themselves to be a danger.  However, I don't think it changes the equation that you want to make sure that if they are nuts and haven't killed anyone yet once they go off the deepend that nobody is a threat to shoot back like you do with other criminals.

Your plan does work great.  Every nut job has been able to kill a bunch more people while terrified victims run and hide under tables.  Congratulations, your carnage has been spectacular.  And women being wasted by their ex-husbands, you're doing a great job of that too.  And inner cities like Chicago and DC are war zones where only the bad guys have the guns.  You're doing a great job.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?
Click to expand...


What you and Joe don't understand is cause and effect.  Societies that have gun cultures have guns, societies that don't have gun cultures have fewer guns.  Societies that don't have gun cultures the people don't particularly want them and the government controls them.  Societies that don't have gun cultures are less ethnically diverse and outsiders stand out.  Societies that don't have gun cultures people react if someone does stand out.

Just saying you can take a gun culture in a diverse culture and slap gun laws on them and they will work because France is just a stupid argument.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> You're missing the point (which is typical for you liberal idiots) you can make a thousand laws making it harder to buy guns, the only people it will affect is law-abiding citizens, criminals by definition DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.
> 
> The laws currently on the books are not adequate in the sense that it doesn't look at the mental health history of the purchaser, this could be changed by re-writing the HIPAA law and allowing for a person with a history of mental illness to be included in those that cannot legally buy a firearm. Other than that, the background checks are quite adequate.



That's the point, in a nutshell.  Joe, Candy, Mona, none of them have an answer for it, which is why they continue to evade the question.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.



Actually the op is asking you how gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals since all you are doing now is keeping them out of the hands of honest citizens.  I'm saying you cannot keep them out of the hands of criminals, they don't care about your laws.  Then I point out that our drug laws don't keep pot away from high school kids.  Not only can gun runners do the same thing, but in fact drug runners can import and sell drugs using their existing infrastructure.

Your answer is that you want to work harder to keep guns away from honest citizens.  Candy mentioned it's going to take a while.  Joe thinks if he's arrogant enough we'll fold.  Your belief you're addressing the op is misguided.  You're just assuring criminals you're doing everything to make sure they are the only ones with guns.


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?
Click to expand...


Shit like what doesn't happen? They don't have people with sever mental issues? They don't have bullied children who are angry at the world? Those conditinos are somehow tied to the existence of guns. Thanks for proving my point. Again your response focuses on the inanimate object rather than the person who actually committed the act of violence.


----------



## martybegan

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the HIPAA laws needs to be looked at. I think a doctor should be able to release information about a person with a history of mental illness, with the blessings of the court of course. Then that person would show up on a background check when trying to purchase a firearm. This will not stop the mentally disturbed from obtaining firearms but it will help.
> 
> As for the school shooting, you need to get rid of the "no gun zone" and allow teachers and  parents on campus to carry guns as long as the states concealed carry laws are met.
> 
> It is naïve to think that all gun deaths can be prevented. They can't, but to quote Thomas Jefferson, "an armed society is a polite society".
> 
> 
> "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have any relevant quotes that aren't from 200 years ago? Geez, In 1776, people may have needed to be armed at all times, but today? No. Well, now that you have 300,000,000 weapons out there, maybe, but you have to start somewhere... I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.
Click to expand...


Those pesky 1700's documents.... who needs em???

/sarcasm.


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.



Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.

It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.
> 
> It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.
Click to expand...


There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun.  Why didn't they ignore the law and have them?  Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers.   They would have criminal records.  So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that.  Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.

The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts.  It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens.  The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.

What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws.  The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't advocate taking law abiding citizens' weapons away from them, that's not what the op is about, but making it harder for everyone to buy guns is the only way forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.
> 
> It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun.  Why didn't they ignore the law and have them?  Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers.   They would have criminal records.  So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that.  Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.
> 
> The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts.  It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens.  The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.
> 
> What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws.  The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.
Click to expand...

As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.
> 
> It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun.  Why didn't they ignore the law and have them?  Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers.   They would have criminal records.  So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that.  Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.
> 
> The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts.  It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens.  The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.
> 
> What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws.  The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.
Click to expand...


Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands. 

So given that fact, what would be your solution?


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun.  Why didn't they ignore the law and have them?  Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers.   They would have criminal records.  So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that.  Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.
> 
> The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts.  It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens.  The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.
> 
> What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws.  The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.
> 
> So given that fact, what would be your solution?
Click to expand...


I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".


----------



## TemplarKormac

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.
> 
> So given that fact, what would be your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
Click to expand...


No. Just no. There will be no tweaks to the 2nd Amendment to sate this need for an assault weapons ban.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.
> 
> So given that fact, what would be your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
Click to expand...


Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law.  I mean who could question your basis for arguing that?  Criminals?  Break the law?  I mean they're very adamant on that point.  They really believe in the law.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the end result the same? You advocate making it harder for EVERYONE, law abiding or not, to obtain a gun. Why the law abiding, which make up over 95% of gun owners should be inconvenienced in some naive attempt to stop the 5% that are irresponsible and would find a way to get a gun, legally or not, makes no sense.
> 
> It's the only way forward? For the narrow minded and irrational I suppose so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There must have been plenty of people in the Washington Navy Yard who knew how to shoot a gun.  Why didn't they ignore the law and have them?  Because if they are caught, it would be devastating to their careers.   They would have criminal records.  So honest citizens don't break the law, even stupid laws like that.  Criminals on the other hand don't care about yet another arrest on their record.
> 
> The laws they make are effective with preventing legal gun ownership and even legal gun owner's guns are locked up at home which doesn't help them when the shooting starts.  It's far beyond just that a majority are honest citizens.  The effect of the laws are virtually 100% on honest citizens.
> 
> What liberals get out of gun laws is maximum carnage in shootings and then they have the smug self satisfaction moment that we need more gun laws.  The more wrong a liberal is, the more smug they are about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.
Click to expand...


Your plan is that by keeping hands out of the hands of honest citizens and doing nothing about guns in the hands of criminals we will be safer.  Naivety is not an admirable trait.  Congrats on all the kids and teachers whos bodies were splattered over the walls of Connecticut, must have been a very proud moment for your smugness.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.
> 
> So given that fact, what would be your solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law.  I mean who could question your basis for arguing that?  Criminals?  Break the law?  I mean they're very adamant on that point.  They really believe in the law.
Click to expand...


If we can at least agree that 9.000+ gun deaths a year is way too many, then I'm at least willing to try things, debate different ideas... you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to you, who'd do nothing and let the carnage continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.
> 
> So given that fact, what would be your solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
Click to expand...


The last year on record only about 400 murders were committed with ANY type of rifle. That INCLUDES your supposed assault version. SO out of 10000 firearms murders 400 were committed with rifles. Since we know most of those rifles were not the supposed assault version you are claiming that getting rid of a rifle will effect less then 2 percent of all murders.

That is your great plan?

Once again for the slow and stupid the Courts have routinely ruled that a punitive tax on a right is an infringement.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law.  I mean who could question your basis for arguing that?  Criminals?  Break the law?  I mean they're very adamant on that point.  They really believe in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can at least agree that 9.000+ gun deaths a year is way too many, then I'm at least willing to try things, debate different ideas... you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.
Click to expand...


You are beyond biased and have a closed mind yourself. I do not agree that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population dying to protect a right is bad. NOT one thing you have suggested would have ANY impact on the criminal use of firearms. It would not prevent one criminal from obtaining a firearm.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face the fact that no law will keep arms out of criminal hands.
> 
> So given that fact, what would be your solution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last year on record only about 400 murders were committed with ANY type of rifle. That INCLUDES your supposed assault version. SO out of 10000 firearms murders 400 were committed with rifles. Since we know most of those rifles were not the supposed assault version you are claiming that getting rid of a rifle will effect less then 2 percent of all murders.
> 
> That is your great plan?
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid the Courts have routinely ruled that a punitive tax on a right is an infringement.
Click to expand...

Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, because criminals wouldn't buy illegal guns, that would be against the law and if there's one thing a criminal wouldn't do it's violate the law.  I mean who could question your basis for arguing that?  Criminals?  Break the law?  I mean they're very adamant on that point.  They really believe in the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we can at least agree that 9.000+ gun deaths a year is way too many, then I'm at least willing to try things, debate different ideas... you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.
Click to expand...


I am not arguing for status quo.  We need to end the ridiculous restrictions and bans that prevent people from defending themselves and protecting their families, liberty and property.

There will be no more criminals or gun crimes because of eliminating restrictions, criminals already freely get guns.  It's their victims now who are restricted, let's end that travesty.


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> you're working with a completely closed mind and want to status quo, where criminals are already getting guns any time they want. Me, I say it's time to try something to counter that.



Nope. I want the status quo, where free citizens aren't treated like criminals just because they want to own something that someone might possibly could maybe someday eventually abuse.

You want to restrict everyone based on the actions of a few. I want to punish the few when they get out of line and leave everyone else alone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. If sales of assault weapon were banned outright, criminals wouldn't have as many and over time, less and less as they wear out. So right there, it's a plus. If people could buy only 1 gun every 10 years, over time again, the supply would be less. If you could have only 3 guns max, over time... If you could only buy a normal amount of bullets per year (sure people can make them, but criminals?). Every little bit would help. Rather than saying: "Duh, people die in cars all the time regardless, why bother trying to make them safer or have safer traffic rules than we had 200 years ago?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last year on record only about 400 murders were committed with ANY type of rifle. That INCLUDES your supposed assault version. SO out of 10000 firearms murders 400 were committed with rifles. Since we know most of those rifles were not the supposed assault version you are claiming that getting rid of a rifle will effect less then 2 percent of all murders.
> 
> That is your great plan?
> 
> Once again for the slow and stupid the Courts have routinely ruled that a punitive tax on a right is an infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.
Click to expand...


Until such time as someone creates and passes an amendment to the Constitution, the supposed assault rifle is here to stay.

You are aware the ONLY difference between what you call an assault weapon and any other semi automatic rifle is how it LOOKS?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.



The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.

However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable."  Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not?  I have a hard time seeing that it is so.  And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.
> 
> However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable."  Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not?  I have a hard time seeing that it is so.  And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.
Click to expand...


You and drunk Sgt are basically part of the problem. It's ridiculous to cling to an outdated amendment for no reason other than you think you might have to overthrow the feds one day, or because some guys in tight pants and frilly shirts thought it was a good idea at the time. I know you'll say get an amendment change, but quite frankly, most of the US is just way too dumb to ever get past the Heston's cold dark hands mentality. Oh well. It was interesting though seeing gun nuts for real, where I live we don't have such obsessiveness with guns. Or people with such cold dark hearts that they are unwilling to even try anything to curb killing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.
> 
> However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable."  Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not?  I have a hard time seeing that it is so.  And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and drunk Sgt are basically part of the problem. It's ridiculous to cling to an outdated amendment for no reason other than you think you might have to overthrow the feds one day, or because some guys in tight pants and frilly shirts thought it was a good idea at the time. I know you'll say get an amendment change, but quite frankly, most of the US is just way too dumb to ever get past the Heston's cold dark hands mentality. Oh well. It was interesting though seeing gun nuts for real, where I live we don't have such obsessiveness with guns. Or people with such cold dark hearts that they are unwilling to even try anything to curb killing.
Click to expand...


And yet you have not curbed anything.

Go ahead, explain for us the difference between a supposed assault rifle and any other semi automatic rifle?


----------



## Spoonman

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.



That's the part they all ignore.  They make proposals and discuss the impact as if it were on the criminals when it doesn't affect the criminal, it only affects the rest of us who are not criminals.

I don't think that they don't grasp that though so much as they don't care.  Independence is the opposite of collectivism.  Defending yourself is independence.  Better for some to die than many more to be independent when it comes to the interest of the collective.

As in New London where they supported the collective taking grandma's home and giving it to a corporation.  Sorry grandma, but the interest of the collective is more important than the home you raised your kids in.  Even if the developer didn't develop and it's still sitting there getting overgrown by the local vegetation.

Liberalism may be sick, but it is consistent.


----------



## MonaGonna

Spoonman said:


> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.



You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.


----------



## BlackSand

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
Click to expand...


Sure they weren't talking about what they didn't know would exist ... They were talking about what the military used at the time.
They weren't talking about hunting or target practice while discussing the ability to defend yourself from an oppressive tyrannical government.

But look at the bright side ... The 2nd Amendment was almost not included in the Constitution over stout arguments.
I am pretty sure that if you put your efforts towards a more productive endeavor like raising support for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment ... You have a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

I am not looking forward to the outcome ... But still might find it interesting as to what happens if such a measure succeeds.

.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

BlackSand said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they weren't talking about what they didn't know would exist ... They were talking about what the military used at the time.
> They weren't talking about hunting or target practice while discussing the ability to defend yourself from an oppressive tyrannical government.
> 
> But look at the bright side ... The 2nd Amendment was almost not included in the Constitution over stout arguments.
> I am pretty sure that if you put your efforts towards a more productive endeavor like raising support for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment ... You have a 50/50 chance of succeeding.
> 
> I am not looking forward to the outcome ... But still might find it interesting as to what happens if such a measure succeeds.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


She isn't even an American. And does not live here. And notice she has not explained to us what an assault rifle is?


----------



## MisterBeale

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ordinary citizens don't need assault rifles, it plain stupidity. So take that 2% and we'll add it to all the other measures that might each add a little bit and soon enough, it'll make a big difference. In your case though, I'd add a sobriety test to the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that what makes sense to you off the top of your head about what's reasonable being a basis for the law is the same ridiculous concept that has the left crushing our freedom in this country too.
> 
> However, here is how you need to look at the question if you chose to ignore the Constitution and focus on "reasonable."  Are we better off if criminals have assault weapons and honest citizens do not?  I have a hard time seeing that it is so.  And as has been pointed out, the term assault weapon has a lot more political speech implication than actual firearm capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and drunk Sgt are basically part of the problem. It's ridiculous to cling to an outdated amendment for no reason other than you think you might have to overthrow the feds one day, or because some guys in tight pants and frilly shirts thought it was a good idea at the time. I know you'll say get an amendment change, but quite frankly, most of the US is just way too dumb to ever get past the Heston's cold dark hands mentality. Oh well. It was interesting though seeing gun nuts for real, where I live we don't have such obsessiveness with guns. Or people with such cold dark hearts that they are unwilling to even try anything to curb killing.
Click to expand...


smh.   So naive.


----------



## hunarcy

MonaGonna said:


> Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.



That is a silly point of view.  If any alternate interpreation is to be adopted, it obviously has to be that the amendment is saying that citizens should have the same weapons as the military.  Your obsession with muskets is ridiculous.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> And given the number of gun deaths in the US every year, people are proving not to be trustworthy with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >300,000,000 guns.
> <32,000 gun deaths per year
> ~1 gun in every 9400 kills someone - andhat, to you, is proof that people are not trustworthy with guns. uh
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for futher provng my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I guess that you laugh at little kids who shoot themselves or their friends/siblings. Or at mass school shootings. Is 9,000+ gun deaths a year an acceptable number for you?
Click to expand...

Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and or dishonesty.


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.



That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.

The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
Click to expand...

Ah, the simple mind of an anti-gun loon.
Given your vapidity, above, tell us why you believe the government should have a warrant to listen in on your cell phone conversations, and why it cannot censor CNN.


----------



## jon_berzerk

M14 Shooter said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the simple mind of an anti-gun loon.
> Given your vapidity, above, tell us why you believe the government should have a warrant to listen in on your cell phone conversations, and why it cannot censor CNN.
Click to expand...


yup 

why is then that the founders didnt ban the Girandoni air rifle 

the assault weapon of the time 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pqFyKh-rUI]Girandoni air rifle as used by Lewis and Clark. A National Firearms Museum Treasure Gun. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MonaGonna

Steven_R said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.
> 
> The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.
Click to expand...


I was kinda kidding. 

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.
> 
> The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
Click to expand...


But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.


----------



## MonaGonna

Spoonman said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are wrong. Not only did the framers of the Constitution know about semi-automatics and rapid fire weapons, they tried to buy them during the Revolution. The Puckle Gun had been in use for about 60 years (a kind of an early Gatling gun) and the Second Continental Congress looked into buying the Belton Gun, which was a early belt-fed weapons (and was abandoned as being too expensive for an unproven technology). People had been trying to increase rates of fie since the first gun shot, so it isn't some inconceivable idea to the framers of the Constitution.
> 
> The framers wanted the citizenry to have access to weapons on par with what the standing armies of the world had access to, just in case it ever became necessary to go to war against our own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
Click to expand...


...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?
Click to expand...


Randy Weaver didn't need to "overthrow" the government when the government murdered his wife using guns, which you say is safe in their hands, not just ours.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?



The cows follow the rancher's instructions right up until when they kill them and cut them into pieces.  Government thinks of you like that, and that you agree with that assessment is what lets them sleep at night while they take one right after another away from you.

There are more options besides overthrowing government and subordinating yourself to them.  And how you think of your rights is critical to how vigilantly you defend them.


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?
Click to expand...


you just made madisons point exactly.  the intent is the civilian population remain as strong as the government.  of course the government along with the help of the anti gun nuts does everything in their power to stop that from happening.  Get it? 

Think about this,  if our military can't stop a radical insurgency in afghanistan, what makes you think they could stop one here?


----------



## Steven_R

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?
Click to expand...


Chris Dorner, one single man, shut down California for a week. There are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country. If 1/10 of 1% of that number decide it's time, that's 100,000 Chris Dorners.

Cavemen in Afghanistan have stopped the British, Soviet, and now American armies dead in their tracks. We aren't cavemen, but a literate and technological society. How many gun owners are engineers and scientists and physicians and machinists and tradesmen with skillsets and knowledge and experience with planning and problem solving?

But they have tanks and drones. Good. Tanks need fuel and troops need food. Every inch between the production facilities and destinations will been to be covered. The US Army doesn't have that kind of manpower. Even if they did, short of total warfare against the US there is no way to bring that firepower against any rebellion. Are you going to firebomb Detroit just to get a sniper? Drone attacks against McDonald's because they are meeting places? Roll tanks and flatten Bumfuck, Kansas just in case? Naval blockade Hawaii to starve out a few people? All that does is turn the population against the government. How many troops will go along with that plan anyways?

It won't be a stand up battle if it ever get to be Go Time. It'll be a low-level insurgency from coast to coast. The goal isn't to overthrow tyrants. The goal is to make it so costly that TPTB never start tyranny in the first place.


----------



## KevinWestern

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?
Click to expand...


I think you incorrectly assume that 100% of the US army would be fighting _for _the US gov't in that sort of a situation. Probably not the case at all. 

I think Ron Paul - for example - receives a great deal of his funding/support from the military. I don't these guys would be obeying commands to fire on US citizens anytime soon.


----------



## kaz

KevinWestern said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you incorrectly assume that 100% of the US army would be fighting _for _the US gov't in that sort of a situation. Probably not the case at all.
> 
> I think Ron Paul - for example - receives a great deal of his funding/support from the military. I don't these guys would be obeying commands to fire on US citizens anytime soon.
Click to expand...


Yes, I am not military, but my family is.  They believe they are fighting for freedom, they do not believe they are fighting freedom.  Not that there aren't a lot of military who would just follow orders, but I believe the majority would not.


----------



## MonaGonna

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.



I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.


----------



## TemplarKormac

MonaGonna said:


> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.



What do you expect us to do? Submit? 

Over my dead body.


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.
Click to expand...


Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?


----------



## TemplarKormac

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?
Click to expand...


Yeah, considering that there are 315 million people in this country alone. Your gun control argument fails when it concerns places like Chicago or Detroit.


----------



## KevinWestern

MonaGonna said:


> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.



No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen. 

I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean *literally*) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A &#8220;check&#8221; against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns. 

Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:

1.)	Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns&#8230;. Or
2.)	Criminals and government has guns (gun control)

Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.


I see you have nothig of substance to refute the posiiton, and so you must resort to ad homs.
Thank you for again proving my point.


----------



## M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your vapidity, above, tell us why you believe the government should have a warrant to listen in on your cell phone conversations, and why it cannot censor CNN.
Click to expand...


No response, eh?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?
Click to expand...


Do the math. 9000 from 316 million is miniscule. Hell even if you assume only 100 million own firearms 9000 is miniscule. Again for the slow the number of deaths per 100000 in the US from firearms murders is 3.7 or less. You would deny 999996 people their rights because of that?


----------



## Ernie S.

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners.  pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.
Click to expand...

They were talking about muskets because muskets were what the government had.

And what the fuck is a large caliber magazine?

If you are going to argue for gun control, perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject.

Oh and the Bill of Rights was not written in 1776, but 1789


----------



## Ernie S.

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was kinda kidding.
> 
> But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking.  An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved.  they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?
Click to expand...

Do you really think barack obama could persuade the US Army to fire on US citizens?
10% of them, perhaps, but, believe me! The US Army is all about liberty and doesn't much care for tin hat dictators.


----------



## Ernie S.

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?
Click to expand...


And you STILL can't answer a simple question? Do you want to be taken seriously?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you STILL can't answer a simple question? Do you want to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...


the gun rights people ask

*why  do the criminals choose gun free zones to do their shoot outs* 

because they are free to wreak havoc 

without the threat being confronted by an armed citizen

the left says that is non sense even though 

we see repeated  shoot outs in *gun free zones* 

the pro gun folks typical reply a real head scratchier  for the left  

*well why then do you not see the crazies attacking police stations *

now in the words of the criminal 

*-[The suspect said he wanted to deliver a package to police and kill officers but, because he would be outgunned, he would "wreak havoc" elsewhere.]-*

it cant get much clearer then that 

Man kills woman, shoots hostages and is killed in gunbattle - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?
Click to expand...


It might be someones problem, but it's not mine

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

KevinWestern said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen.
> 
> I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean *literally*) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A &#8220;check&#8221; against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns.
> 
> Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:
> 
> 1.)	Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns&#8230;. Or
> 2.)	Criminals and government has guns (gun control)
> 
> Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.
Click to expand...

2 straw arguments. The first one is TOTALLY ridiculous that you think you'll need to overthrow your own government one day as a reason. The second one fails because if you squeeze the supply of guns for everyone and use various methods to restrict purchase and ownership (no drug users, alcoholics, mental cases, felons...), squeeze the bullet supply as well, then as time goes on, it'll be harder and harder to get a gun, FOR EVERYONE, including bad guys. It works in other countries, you guys just refuse to accept it and refute it with shit that doesn't even make any sense.

And I'll add that personally, I don't care if the mafia, bikers and dealers gangs shoot each other. It's the so called good guys who shoot up the schools, movie houses, spouses... so maybe if we restrict your "normal" citizen more than others, gun deaths will still go down and the gang bangers can keep shooting each other.

I'll also add that I have no problem with citizens having a hand gun at home to protect themselves and their family, and a rifle for hunting. Banning guns outright is not on in my book.


.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen.
> 
> I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean *literally*) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A check against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns.
> 
> Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:
> 
> 1.)	Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns. Or
> 2.)	Criminals and government has guns (gun control)
> 
> Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 straw arguments. The first one is TOTALLY ridiculous that you think you'll need to overthrow your own government one day as a reason. The second one fails because if you squeeze the supply of guns for everyone and use various methods to restrict purchase and ownership (no drug users, alcoholics, mental cases, felons...), squeeze the bullet supply as well, then as time goes on, it'll be harder and harder to get a gun, FOR EVERYONE, including bad guys. It works in other countries, you guys just refuse to accept it and refute it with shit that doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...


Nice dream world interpretation. 

Not going to happen here

Be smart and buy a firearm for protection because the police have no legal obligation to do so.

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux, I had edited my post before I saw yours, hope it answers your post.


----------



## Wildman

*



			They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed.
		
Click to expand...

*
*i'll go along with that as long as everything else is brought into context, like single page printing presses, horse and buggy, no telephones, no internet, no SS, no Wal-mart, K-mart or Ace hardware stores, no grocery stores.., WoW the possibilities of a more free life style we could have IF we just rolled everything back about 200 years*


* you fucking liarberals just crack me up in hilarity with your constant relationship with insanity. *


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen.
> 
> I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean *literally*) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A &#8220;check&#8221; against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns.
> 
> Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:
> 
> 1.)	Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns&#8230;. Or
> 2.)	Criminals and government has guns (gun control)
> 
> Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 straw arguments.
Click to expand...

As opposed to your prattle, fully based on emotion, ignorance and.of dishonesty.




> The first one is TOTALLY ridiculous that you think you'll need to overthrow your own government one day as a reason


I see you aren't privy to the history of the human race, where people fins the need to overthrow their governments on a regular basis.
Thus, you argue from ignorance.



> The second one fails because if you squeeze the supply of guns for everyone and use various methods to restrict purchase and ownership (no drug users, alcoholics, mental cases, felons...), squeeze the bullet supply as well, then as time goes on, it'll be harder and harder to get a gun, FOR EVERYONE, including bad guys.


You also violate the constitution, whoch guarantees that it shall never be dfficult for those who are legally able to have guns to get them.
Your argument thusly fails.



> And I'll add that personally, I don't care if the mafia, bikers and dealers gangs shoot each other. It's the so called good guys who shoot up the schools, movie houses, spouses... so maybe if we restrict your "normal" citizen more than others, gun deaths will still go down and the gang bangers can keep shooting each other.


Typical antigun loon nonsense -- pass laws that restrict only the law abiding, specifically admitting that said laws will not affect crimnals



> I'll also add that I have no problem with citizens having a hand gun at home to protect themselves and their family, and a rifle for hunting. Banning guns outright is not on in my book.


And yeet, you seek to ban handguns, rifles and shotguns -- from the law abiding, not the crimnals.

Im glad that people such as you are as common as you are -- your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dshonesty virtually guarantees that there will be no further gun control.


----------



## MonaGonna

M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries. 

Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.



But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country? 

This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...


Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. It's the too easy accessibility to so many guns, and the very strong gun mentality in the US that gets little children to shoot their friends or sibling, and teenagers to go on a rampage. Not wanting to try ANYTHING, like you folks, is deplorable. Cold dark hearts.
I hope you at least realize that you're part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Including the people who got shot.  They lawfully didn't bring a gun because they are illegal at the school.  Mona thinks if they were illegal in general, then the shooter would have followed the law and not had a gun.  I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the logic that someone who kills people and takes a gun to a gun free zone would suddenly follow the law if they were illegal.  Or if Candy gets her way and they just have to pay a higher tax.  Mona likes carnage and weeping families on TV lamenting their dead family because it gives her a smug, sanctimonious sense of self righteousness.

She just assumes that if we got rid of all the honest citizens guns that we would have gotten the criminals guns, they wouldn't have been able to buy one from a dealer who could get one carried across the Mexican border and the psychos who did it wouldn't be able to think of any other way to kill people so they would give up and everyone would live happily in liberal fantasy land.

It's a lot of assumptions, and they are ridiculous.  So she just falls back on the inherent truth of liberalism. If you can prove to her she's wrong without violating the inherent truth of liberalism, then she will consider your argument.


----------



## Geaux4it

Why is it irrelevant?

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

They have a down arrow on 11,000 gun murders. So 11,000 guns murders, that's a plus? Pretty funny.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> They have a down arrow on 11,000 gun murders. So 11,000 guns murders, that's a plus? Pretty funny.



What you refuse to acknowledge from the presented data, is while gun ownership in the US continues to climb, the murder rate has actually dropped to lowest in 31 years?.

Why do we want to present flawed solutions in search of a problem?

-Geaux


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


A lot less then .1 percent.


----------



## Geaux4it

RetiredGySgt said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot less then .1 percent.
Click to expand...


Agreed... Easier to present the conservative number

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> They have a down arrow on 11,000 gun murders. So 11,000 guns murders, that's a plus? Pretty funny.



Your "plan" is that people who shoot people won't violate the law and buy an illegal gun to do it and they can't think of any other way to kill people.


----------



## rdean

70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.

Thank God they are mostly in Red States.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> 70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.
> 
> Thank God they are mostly in Red States.



That's OK, you give it back as most abortions are in Blue States...


----------



## Spoonman

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

 probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. It's the too easy accessibility to so many guns, and the very strong gun mentality in the US that gets little children to shoot their friends or sibling, and teenagers to go on a rampage. Not wanting to try ANYTHING, like you folks, is deplorable. Cold dark hearts.
> I hope you at least realize that you're part of the problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...


considering there has always been easy access to guns, go back 20 30 years it was even easier. there were no background checks at all. no gun registries.  anyone could walk in and buy a gun.    but we didn't have these problems.  guns are not the problem and banning guns or even attempting to restrict guns will not solve what the real problem is.  gun grabbers need to wake up and realize they are on the end of a losing battle.  if you really have any interest in solving the real problem, you will begin to address that and drop your agenda.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
Click to expand...


This is the issue.  Shooters keep going to "gun free zones."  Because ... they know there will be no guns.

Unfortunately for Mona, it's another example that criminals don't follow the law like she says they will.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
Click to expand...


This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.
Click to expand...


you tell me how limiting magazine capacity keeps guns out of the hands of criminals?  how banning assault style weapons keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. how nay restrictive law that has been passed keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
Click to expand...


That argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being that you are only counting guns and not who has them.  Criminals have them now and they will have them.  What you said deflects from that we are allowing the victims to have them, and you are not.



Pogo said:


> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.


That has nothing to do with allowing people to defend themselves, it's a ridiculous analogy.



Pogo said:


> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.



People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out.  You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are.  That's your argument.

Seriously, when criminals shoot at us, shooting back makes us as bad as they are and doubles the damage.  That's what you believe?  Seriously.


----------



## Geaux4it

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the issue.  Shooters keep going to "gun free zones."  Because ... they know there will be no guns.
Click to expand...


Indeed

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
Click to expand...


Um, well it is the answer

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> probably because the laws forced by you lunatic gun grabbers forced their guns to be at home locked in a safe.    Nice going
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being that you are only counting guns and not who has them.  Criminals have them now and they will have them.  What you said deflects from that we are allowing the victims to have them, and you are not.
Click to expand...


"Who has them" is irrelevant.  You're trying to get to the "good guy with a gun/bad guy with a gun" fantasy, which is another fallacy of dichotomy.  Everybody on "my" side is the good guy.  Doesn't work.



kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with allowing people to defend themselves, it's a ridiculous analogy.
Click to expand...


It's a perfect analogy but yes, it has nothing to do with people defending themselves.  It has to do with creating the situation in the first place.



kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out.  You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are.  That's your argument.
Click to expand...


No, that's not cancellation, that's *escalation*.  There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.



kaz said:


> Seriously, when criminals shoot at us, shooting back makes us as bad as they are and doubles the damage.  That's what you believe?  Seriously.



Again, "bad" doesn't enter into it.  That's a value judgement.  I'm talking about real-world potentials and results, not morals.

If you think shooting back is the answer, tell me -- how has that idea been working out in warfare over the last fifty thousand years?


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals


1  You cannot prove this
2  You already said that it would not stop criminals

Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additional gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.



> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses...


Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.


----------



## Spoonman

if you are going to rob a convenience store, are you more likely to rob one where you know the employees are armed or where they aren't.   same holds true, if you are going to mug someone, is your victim more likely to be a 250 lb marine or a meek looking dude who probably can't fight back?  you are less likely to attack if you anticipate being met with equal or greater force.


----------



## Spoonman

M14 Shooter said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 1  You cannot prove this
> 2  You already said that it would not stop criminals
> 
> Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additiobnal gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
> You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.
Click to expand...


well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals. It's worked in other countries.
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses... whose kids shoot themselves or friends... so even restricting guns to them alone would be a big plus. Criminals don't do school massacres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not. Can't impact the many, by acts of the very, very few
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
Click to expand...

0.0028% of guns in the US are used each year to commit murder.

This proves to anyone with a minimal capacity for reason that law-abiding gun owners are not a danger to society thusly warranting a restriction of their rights.  You may continue to belive that they are but doing so only indicates that your agenda isn't subject to the restrictions of reality.

Simple possession/ownership of any class of firearm harms no one and places no on in a condition of clear, present and imminent danger -- as such there is no rational basis for restricting the right to so do.  This concept, however, is beyond you.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14, restricting guns sales for everyone will have a trickle down effect on criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 1  You cannot prove this
> 2  You already said that it would not stop criminals
> 
> Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additiobnal gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it's the so called law-abiding citizens who are shooting up schools, movies theatres, spouses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
> You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption
Click to expand...


Excellent point.  Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?

You can't legislate these things away.  We should know that by now.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA does it every day of the fucking week. So does the EPA, and all the agencies that regulate GMOs... The US military did it in Iraq. Cheney says go and they go kill 300,000 and destroy the country?
> 
> This sentence "But when whackos decided to become criminals, 99.9% of gun owners did not" doesn't even make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try again. When school shootings happen, 99.9% of law abiding gun owners went about their business lawfully
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant. It's the too easy accessibility to so many guns, and the very strong gun mentality in the US that gets little children to shoot their friends or sibling...
Click to expand...

You argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.   Your posiiton has no rational basis and is duly dismissed by thiose capable of reason.


----------



## M14 Shooter

rdean said:


> 70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.
> 
> Thank God they are mostly in Red States.


Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty.  Please keep up the good work.


----------



## Geaux4it

M14 Shooter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.
> 
> Thank God they are mostly in Red States.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty.  Please keep up the good work.
Click to expand...


The left unpatriotic socialist have no idea why they don't like guns. It's just the trendy subject at cocktail parties where they complain about guns, global warming and the demise of the snowy plover.

Sounds like a great time

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1  You cannot prove this
> 2  You already said that it would not stop criminals
> 
> Fact of the matter is you cannot present an argument for additiobnal gun control that does not spring from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you and your ilk, we live in a free country where we not restrict the rights of the law abiding until after they commit a crime simply on the basis they they might commit a crime.
> You may desire such a thing, but it then means you desire to live in something other than a free country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?
> 
> You can't legislate these things away.  We should know that by now.
Click to expand...


So based on this and your prior response to me, you're actually arguing that we should recognize criminals will have guns and shoot at us, and we actually should prevent people from having guns to protect themselves?


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.
> 
> Thank God they are mostly in Red States.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty.  Please keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left unpatriotic socialist have no idea why they don't like guns. It's just the trendy subject at cocktail parties where they complain about guns, global warming and the demise of the snowy plover.
> 
> Sounds like a great time
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


I think it's clear why the left don't want individuals to have guns.  That's the key word, individual.  The ability to defend oneself and take care of oneself maintains us as individuals.  They are collectivists.  You have to succumb to the collective and live, or die, with the consequences of that.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its working so well for drugs I can see how she'd make that assumption
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?
> 
> You can't legislate these things away.  We should know that by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So based on this and your prior response to me, you're actually arguing that we should recognize criminals will have guns and shoot at us, and we actually should prevent people from having guns to protect themselves?
Click to expand...


Huuuuuhh?

How in the fuck do you get that?


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Don't let you have one.


----------



## rdean

kaz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.
> 
> Thank God they are mostly in Red States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK, you give it back as most abortions are in Blue States...
Click to expand...



Your kind has so much worry for the fetus, but let the babies starve the little bastards.


----------



## Londoner

One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.

Take this bad argument:

"Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals getting guns; therefore stricter gun laws are useless."

Fail.

The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.

For instance, there are a lot of emotionally unstable adults and adolescents who don't have the intelligence or discipline to secure a gun if they have to jump through too many hoops. However, if a gun is just lying around because lax gun laws have permitted an over-proliferation of guns, than it is more likely that an unstable person will have access to a gun and use it _during_ one of their psychotic swings, which come and go.

Stricter gun laws, like stricter abortion laws and stricter drunk driving laws, will never get rid of the "offending" behavior completely. The key is to limit it. Just because people speed and go through red lights doesn't mean we should get rid of traffic signals.

To say "but criminals will always be able to get guns" is true but completely fucking irrelevant. The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?" This is where the argument is, but the Right has been given bumper stickers that oversimplify the issue as per usual. This is what happens when a special interest group feeds money into a pundit class which, in turn, feeds talking points to well-meaning idiots.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Londoner said:


> One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.
> 
> Take this bad argument:
> 
> "Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals getting guns; therefore stricter gun laws are useless."
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.
> 
> For instance, there are a lot of emotionally unstable adults and adolescents who don't have the intelligence or discipline to secure a gun if they have to jump through too many hoops. However, if a gun is just lying around because lax gun laws have permitted an over-proliferation of guns, than it is more likely that an unstable person will have access to a gun and use it _during_ one of their psychotic swings, which come and go.
> 
> Stricter gun laws, like stricter abortion laws and stricter drunk driving laws, will never get rid of the "offending" behavior completely. The key is to limit it. Just because people speed and go through red lights doesn't mean we should get rid of traffic signals.
> 
> To say "but criminals will always be able to get guns" is true but completely fucking irrelevant. The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?" This is where the argument is, but the Right has been given bumper stickers that oversimplify the issue as per usual. This is what happens when a special interest group feeds money into a pundit class which, in turn, feeds talking points to well-meaning idiots.



Ohh look another idiot.


----------



## MonaGonna

^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.


----------



## Steven_R

Londoner said:


> The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.



There's a chart a few pages back that shows that as more gun laws are enacted, gun crime goes up.


----------



## Spoonman

Londoner said:


> One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.
> 
> Take this bad argument:
> 
> "Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals getting guns; therefore stricter gun laws are useless."
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.
> 
> For instance, there are a lot of emotionally unstable adults and adolescents who don't have the intelligence or discipline to secure a gun if they have to jump through too many hoops. However, if a gun is just lying around because lax gun laws have permitted an over-proliferation of guns, than it is more likely that an unstable person will have access to a gun and use it _during_ one of their psychotic swings, which come and go.
> 
> Stricter gun laws, like stricter abortion laws and stricter drunk driving laws, will never get rid of the "offending" behavior completely. The key is to limit it. Just because people speed and go through red lights doesn't mean we should get rid of traffic signals.
> 
> To say "but criminals will always be able to get guns" is true but completely fucking irrelevant. The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?" This is where the argument is, but the Right has been given bumper stickers that oversimplify the issue as per usual. This is what happens when a special interest group feeds money into a pundit class which, in turn, feeds talking points to well-meaning idiots.



Now that is a bad argument.   make pot illegal people can't get it.   make booze illegal,  people can't get it.   I mean lets be real.  making something illegal makes nothing harder to get, including guns.   it just means you get it from a different source.  you don't but it from a store anymore.   make guns illegal here and a black market will explode.   In NY with the safe act, one already has.  ar-15's are illegal to buy in a store. so no one is buying them from a store.  you can still get them though.  very easily.   and you know what happens then. you have no way of controlling who has what.  there is no registration in a black market.  there is  no background check.     do you honestly think most criminals are walking into  a store and buying there gun today?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  Worked well for alcohol too, didn't it?
> 
> You can't legislate these things away.  We should know that by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So based on this and your prior response to me, you're actually arguing that we should recognize criminals will have guns and shoot at us, and we actually should prevent people from having guns to protect themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huuuuuhh?
> 
> How in the fuck do you get that?
Click to expand...


You weren't listening to what you were saying?  Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to.  That's exactly what you argued.  If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify.  But what you argued was clear.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let you have one.
Click to expand...


I have a whole gun collection. rifles, shotguns, pistols.  A civil war gun with a bayonet.  Want to stop by for drinks after dinner?


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for again helping to prove that anti0gun loons can only argue from emotoion, ignorance and/or disgonesty.  Please keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left unpatriotic socialist have no idea why they don't like guns. It's just the trendy subject at cocktail parties where they complain about guns, global warming and the demise of the snowy plover.
> 
> Sounds like a great time
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's clear why the left don't want individuals to have guns.  That's the key word, individual.  The ability to defend oneself and take care of oneself maintains us as individuals.  They are collectivists.  You have to succumb to the collective and live, or die, with the consequences of that.
Click to expand...

Anti-gun loons don't give a whit about protecting innocent people, they only want the state to have a monopoly on everything, including force.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Londoner said:


> One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.
> Take this bad argument:
> "Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals getting guns; therefore stricter gun laws are useless."
> Fail.
> The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.


Speaking of fail...
You cannot prevent people from breaking the law by passing a law.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of all gun related deaths are suicide.
> 
> Thank God they are mostly in Red States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's OK, you give it back as most abortions are in Blue States...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your kind has so much worry for the fetus, but let the babies starve the little bastards.
Click to expand...


Liberals practicing logic is a very dangerous experience.  You and I have posted in so many of the same threads at this point that the only explanation for your not knowing that I'm a pro-choice libertarian is your overt stupidity.  I went for the quip and you stepped on it like an upside down rake in the yard, but there is an interesting observation on your original quote.

Most of the guns are in the Red States, most of the gun laws are in the Blue States, most of the murders are in the ... wait for it ... Blue States.

Life just doesn't cooperate with your bull, does it dean?


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?"



I'm good with how you phrased the question.  And the answer to that is clearly no.  It will not save one life, gun laws cost lives.  People's ability to defend themselves clearly saves lives.  And gun laws clearly unduly limits the constitutionality of the citizens.

Gun laws are also just morally wrong.  Government does not protect you, it just draws a line around your body and makes some inquiries to see if they can future out who did it.  Removing your ability to defend yourself and protect your family and your property is just wrong.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So based on this and your prior response to me, you're actually arguing that we should recognize criminals will have guns and shoot at us, and we actually should prevent people from having guns to protect themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huuuuuhh?
> 
> How in the fuck do you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You weren't listening to what you were saying?  Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to.  That's exactly what you argued.  If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify.  But what you argued was clear.
Click to expand...


I cannot possibly defend _*your *_conclusion. It makes no sense.  The onus is on you to explain what the hell you're talking about.  I have no idea.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huuuuuhh?
> 
> How in the fuck do you get that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't listening to what you were saying?  Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to.  That's exactly what you argued.  If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify.  But what you argued was clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot possibly defend _*your *_conclusion. It makes no sense.  The onus is on you to explain what the hell you're talking about.  I have no idea.
Click to expand...


The irony is I'm saying what the hell are you talking about and you're saying it's my job to say what I'm talking about that what you are talking about makes no sense.   You said the answer to guns is not more guns and the answer is not to shoot back.  Then you conceded we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.   Why don't you actually explain your position because what you have been saying in response to posts makes no sense.


----------



## TemplarKormac

MonaGonna said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.



^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't listening to what you were saying?  Read the two posts, I told you which two I was referring to.  That's exactly what you argued.  If that isn't what you meant, fine, clarify.  But what you argued was clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot possibly defend _*your *_conclusion. It makes no sense.  The onus is on you to explain what the hell you're talking about.  I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The irony is I'm saying what the hell are you talking about and you're saying it's my job to say what I'm talking about that what you are talking about makes no sense.   You said the answer to guns is not more guns and the answer is not to shoot back.  Then you conceded we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.   Why don't you actually explain your position because what you have been saying in response to posts makes no sense.
Click to expand...


I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  You inserted those.

No wonder you're not making sense; you're inserting your own content.  And I can't answer for it.

I thought I just said that.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.
Click to expand...


It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct.  Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's *entire *answer was, and I quote, 



> Ohh look another idiot.


That's it.

Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all.  I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.

And you just did the same thing.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  You inserted those.



I went back and you so clearly did say both of those that I'm not going to go to the effort to play your game.

Since you want to play word games with you said what you didn't say you meant you didn't mean you said, as I said, the way to clarify this is to state your view.  A request you ignored.  If you want to word parse and rewrite history, obviously when I show you the quotes I already showed you you're just going to spin your way out of it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Gun control does not work on its own. Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons. Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.

Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.

More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.

In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.

One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  You inserted those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went back and you so clearly did say both of those that I'm not going to go to the effort to play your game.
Click to expand...


-- which means you _*can't*_ quote them, since they don't exist.

Once again, Russel's Teapot -- it's not on me to prove the nonexistence of something I didn't write.



kaz said:


> Since you want to play word games with you said what you didn't say you meant you didn't mean you said, as I said, the way to clarify this is to state your view.



The bit before "as I said" doesn't even make grammatical sense.  Do you speak English?

I _did _state my view; that it doesn't say what you wish it would have is just not my problem.  I don't write your posts for you, and you don't write mine.


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^ Now THAT post makes you look like a real genius Sarge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct.  Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's *entire *answer was, and I quote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh look another idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all.  I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.
> 
> And you just did the same thing.
Click to expand...


Londoners arguments only made sense if drug laws actually made it hard for people to get drugs.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^Now this post proves you lost this argument eons ago. You're a real idiot, MonaGonnaInsane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct.  Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's *entire *answer was, and I quote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh look another idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all.  I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.
> 
> And you just did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Londoners arguments only made sense if drug laws actually made it hard for people to get drugs.
Click to expand...


On the basis of the arguments, I agree with yours.  Although to the present post, drug laws *do* make it hard, to a degree.  I think your greater point is that passing prohibitive laws doesn't deter the _desire for _drugs, and they'll go around the law to get them.  Assuming that is your meaning, that's why I agree with the analogy.

I was just saying that "oh look another idiot" is not an argument.  I have this extreme disdain for intellectual sloth.


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It "proves" no such thing; it's actually correct.  Londoner put out a whole set of arguments and RetiredPerson's *entire *answer was, and I quote,
> 
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Go ahead, educate me on how "Ohh look another idiot" makes any point at all.  I read that and figured what he "retired" from was critical thought, because there's none there.
> 
> And you just did the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoners arguments only made sense if drug laws actually made it hard for people to get drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the basis of the arguments, I agree with yours.  Although to the present post, drug laws *do* make it hard, to a degree.  I think your greater point is that passing prohibitive laws doesn't deter the _desire for _drugs, and they'll go around the law to get them.  Assuming that is your meaning, that's why I agree with the analogy.
> 
> I was just saying that "oh look another idiot" is not an argument.  I have this extreme disdain for intellectual sloth.
Click to expand...


passing laws doesn't stop anyone who wants to use drugs from using them. and any one who wants to use them has no problem at all getting them.  people who don't do drugs don't see them in stores or on the shelves somewhere and they think their laws are having some effect.  drug use is rampant in this country.  drugs are everywhere.   and it's the same with gun laws.  NY passed its safe act restricting any type of semi automatic with an changeable magazine.  they banned magazines larger than 7 rounds.  so you don't see them on the shelves.  but you can still get them.  the only difference is you don't get them through a legal source.   and right now illegal AR's and AK's are a huge business.  Cuomo told people they can't have them so there are people who probably never would have bought them now buying them.   all he was successful in doing was creating a black market opportunity.


----------



## Londoner

Spoonman said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing Liberals can do is point out bad arguments.
> 
> Take this bad argument:
> 
> "Stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns; therefore stricter gun laws are useless."
> 
> Fail.
> 
> The goal is not to eliminate gun deaths, but to limit them by making it a little harder for the wrong people to get guns.
> 
> For instance, there are a lot of emotionally unstable adults and adolescents who don't have the intelligence or discipline to secure a gun if they have to jump through too many hoops. However, if a gun is just lying around because lax gun laws have permitted an over-proliferation of guns, than it is more likely that an unstable person will have access to a gun and use it _during_ one of their psychotic swings, which come and go.
> 
> Stricter gun laws, like stricter abortion laws and stricter drunk driving laws, will never get rid of the "offending" behavior completely. The key is to limit it. Just because people speed and go through red lights doesn't mean we should get rid of traffic signals.
> 
> To say "but criminals will always be able to get guns" is true but completely fucking irrelevant. The real question is "will this piece of legislation save one life while not unduly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of free citizens?" This is where the argument is, but the Right has been given bumper stickers that oversimplify the issue as per usual. This is what happens when a special interest group feeds money into a pundit class which, in turn, feeds talking points to well-meaning idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a bad argument.   make pot illegal people can't get it.   make booze illegal,  people can't get it.   I mean lets be real.  making something illegal makes nothing harder to get, including guns.   it just means you get it from a different source.  you don't but it from a store anymore.   make guns illegal here and a black market will explode.   In NY with the safe act, one already has.  ar-15's are illegal to buy in a store. so no one is buying them from a store.  you can still get them though.  very easily.   and you know what happens then. you have no way of controlling who has what.  there is no registration in a black market.  there is  no background check.     do you honestly think most criminals are walking into  a store and buying there gun today?
Click to expand...


You didn't read my post. (I gotta believe that you and Kaz are pre-college teens who mean well) 

I never suggested making guns illegal, nor did I suggest that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from getting guns. My brother & father in-law hunt and they are very responsible with their guns, and I would never think of restricting their rights. 

Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this. 

The speed limit on the NYS Thruway doesn't prevent people from driving 90MPH. The law against murder doesn't prevent murder. The law against sodomizing a goat doesn't prevent lonely men from the rural south from taking certain barnyard liberties. *BUT* we still have these laws for the purpose of limiting (not eliminating) the offending behavior. If _your_ standard was upheld, we would not have any laws because there will always be criminals who violate those laws. This is stupid. It's a bad argument. Everyone knows that laws don't stop all criminal behavior, but if stricter gun laws make it harder for one mentally retarded teenager to get a gun when he is having a psychotic episode, than perhaps those stricter laws are worth it (if they don't trample constitutionally protected rights). 

(At least read my original post before you spew the same garbage argument that we've heard a million times)


----------



## MonaGonna

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gun control does not work on its own. *Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons.* Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.
> 
> Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.
> 
> More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.
> 
> In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.
> 
> One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.



Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?


----------



## jon_berzerk

*California gun grab triggers Colorado-style recall launch*

California gun-rights advocates, emboldened by last month&#8217;s successful Colorado recall vote, announced Thursday that they plan to target vulnerable Democratic legislators for recall over their support for sweeping gun-control legislation.

&#8220;Right now, in the state of California, the Second Amendment is on the most fragile ground it&#8217;s ever been on,&#8221; said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly at a press conference at the state capitol in Sacramento.

The recall effort is being organized by the newly formed group Free California with the support of Gun Owners of California and several Republican state legislators, including Mr. Donnelly, who&#8217;s also running for the 2014 Republican gubernatorial nomination.

California gun grab triggers Colorado-style recall launch - Washington Times


----------



## hunarcy

Londoner said:


> You didn't read my post. (I gotta believe that you and Kaz are pre-college teens who mean well)
> 
> I never suggested making guns illegal, nor did I suggest that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from getting guns. My brother & father in-law hunt and they are very responsible with their guns, and I would never think of restricting their rights.
> 
> Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.
> 
> The speed limit on the NYS Thruway doesn't prevent people from driving 90MPH. The law against murder doesn't prevent murder. The law against sodomizing a goat doesn't prevent lonely men from the rural south from taking certain barnyard liberties. *BUT* we still have these laws for the purpose of limiting (not eliminating) the offending behavior. If _your_ standard was upheld, we would not have any laws because there will always be criminals who violate those laws. This is stupid. It's a bad argument. Everyone knows that laws don't stop all criminal behavior, but if stricter gun laws make it harder for one mentally retarded teenager to get a gun when he is having a psychotic episode, than perhaps those stricter laws are worth it (if they don't trample constitutionally protected rights).
> 
> (At least read my original post before you spew the same garbage argument that we've heard a million times)



We already have laws making it illegal for people under 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns and illegal for people under 21 to purchase a handgun.  We have laws making murder illegal.  We have local laws prohibiting discharging firearms within city limits.  So, your need for prevention has been met...yet you continue to advocate limiting the rights of law abiding gun owners (who are the only ones who abide by the law) leading one to believe that your agenda is actually different than the one that you publically claim.  Therefore, your argument ultimately fails.


----------



## Geaux4it

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control does not work on its own. *Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons.* Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.
> 
> Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.
> 
> More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.
> 
> In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.
> 
> One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
Click to expand...


*Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*

in the case of obamas fast n furious 

the answer is NO


----------



## hunarcy

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control does not work on its own. *Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons.* Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.
> 
> Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.
> 
> More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.
> 
> In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.
> 
> One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
Click to expand...


You didn't address his points.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed
> 
> -Geaux



*Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed*

exactly 

and dont buy into the lefts myth that criminals do not target 

gun free zones 

they surely do 

did you read the article about the criminal was going to go to the police station 

but decided against it because he would be "out gunned" 

from the article 


*The suspect said he wanted to deliver a package to police and kill officers but, because he would be outgunned, he would "wreak havoc" elsewhere.*

Man kills woman, shoots hostages and is killed in gunbattle - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser


----------



## Geaux4it

For real- Just like the thugs will pass a locked car on the street for one left with the window down

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux4it said:


> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed
> 
> -Geaux



Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.


----------



## MonaGonna

jon_berzerk said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control does not work on its own. *Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons.* Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.
> 
> Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.
> 
> More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.
> 
> In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.
> 
> One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
Click to expand...


A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.
Click to expand...




-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

MonaGonna said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
Click to expand...


you are simply incorrect 

in fast n furious the feds waived through felons and straw purchasers 

in order to pass out and lose guns in mexico


----------



## Ernie S.

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.
Click to expand...


Must check user CP. If any post deserves a neg for stupidity, that is it.


----------



## Ernie S.

Crap! You're up tomorrow.


----------



## Ernie S.

MonaGonna said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
Click to expand...


I have the equipment, knowledge and skill to make guns. I am not all that unusual.


----------



## MonaGonna

Ernie S. said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the equipment, knowledge and skill to make guns. I am not all that unusual.
Click to expand...


Criminals aren't using home made guns. I'm pretty sure even YOU know that. So why spout such nonsense in the first place?


----------



## MonaGonna

jon_berzerk said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are simply incorrect
> 
> in fast n furious the feds waived through felons and straw purchasers
> 
> in order to pass out and lose guns in mexico
Click to expand...


You'd have to translate this into English for me to respond.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of powder you're smoking but no, I didn't say "the answer is not to shoot back", nor did I say "we can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  You inserted those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went back and you so clearly did say both of those that I'm not going to go to the effort to play your game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- which means you _*can't*_ quote them, since they don't exist.
> 
> Once again, Russel's Teapot -- it's not on me to prove the nonexistence of something I didn't write.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you want to play word games with you said what you didn't say you meant you didn't mean you said, as I said, the way to clarify this is to state your view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bit before "as I said" doesn't even make grammatical sense.  Do you speak English?
> 
> I _did _state my view; that it doesn't say what you wish it would have is just not my problem.  I don't write your posts for you, and you don't write mine.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal deflection.  In responding to points you made a bunch of contradictory statements.  I showed you the posts, nope, you don't see it.  Either I can spend a bunch of time cutting and pasting everything together or you can just make a clear, comprehensive statement on your gun law position in a discussion you're actively participating in on gun laws and then I can point to where I'm confused.  So?  What's your view?  You seemed to me to contradict everything you said on it so far.  However, what I have are piecemeal comments.  Maybe a clearer statement of what you're arguing would make it make sense to me.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
Click to expand...


Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States.  Guns are stolen in robberies.  There are old guns that aren't on the radar.

However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future.  If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs. 

And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are simply incorrect
> 
> in fast n furious the feds waived through felons and straw purchasers
> 
> in order to pass out and lose guns in mexico
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd have to translate this into English for me to respond.
Click to expand...


He's referring to an Obama administration program in which they gave a massive number of guns to drug dealers.  Those guns were used to commit a large number of murders, including several US border agents.  We got nothing from the program.  In theory they were supposed to track the guns, but there seemed to be no program to do that and no arrests ever came from the program.

Obama lied about it.  He said he knew nothing about it.  But he used executive privilege to block any investigation.  He can only use executive privilege if he knows about it.  Since he said both he knew and didn't know, one was a lie.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States.  Guns are stolen in robberies.  There are old guns that aren't on the radar.
> 
> However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future.  If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.
> 
> And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Londoner said:


> Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.


How is this a rational basis?
To what other rights does this rational basis then apply?
How do you define "undue restriction"?  How is that definition sound?  How does "undue restriction" compare and contrast to "infringement"?
What "stricter gun law(s)" will prevent one deth?


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control does not work on its own. *Denying guns to law abiding citizens does not keep ANY guns from criminals since they do not legally buy their weapons.* Outlaw guns and the only people that will have them will be the Government and the outlaws.
> 
> Our southern border is porous as hell, guns can easily come through there with already established drug routes. Further they can be smuggled in through our ports and made in backyards and garages. Same for ammo. And no the price won't go up so much that criminals can not afford firearms.
> 
> More firearms deters crime. Criminals feel less safe doing the criminal deed if they know anyone might be armed. That is why most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, the shooter knows no one can hurt him while he kills as many as he can before the cops arrive.
> 
> In EVERY State that has lessened gun laws crime rates have gone DOWN. In every location that has strict onerous gun laws crime rates are high.
> 
> One does not effect criminal possession of firearms by denying weapons to law abiding citizens, anyone that proposes that is an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
Click to expand...

This is not at all necessarily so.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society would be even safer if those people who have guns all shot themselves.
Click to expand...

Thank you for yet again proving that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you make it less and less likely that further gun control laws will be enacted - keep up the good work.


----------



## Ernie S.

MonaGonna said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the equipment, knowledge and skill to make guns. I am not all that unusual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't using home made guns. I'm pretty sure even YOU know that. So why spout such nonsense in the first place?
Click to expand...


But drug addicts are using home made meth, aren't they?
If I made a dozen guns a year, not many people would be able to afford them, but if legal guns are made more difficult to get, I could ramp up production. Then ALL of my guns would be illegal sales and government would have zero control.

Go  ahead, make me a rich man. I dare you.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States.  Guns are stolen in robberies.  There are old guns that aren't on the radar.
> 
> However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future.  If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.
> 
> And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?
Click to expand...


Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?

As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown.  Mexico has far less lax security than even we do.  Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border.  Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US.  Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt.  Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.

Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico?  Just like they do drugs?  What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?

The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely.  IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns.  What's hard about that?  Why can't you address it?

And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol.  At what point will people learn from our mistakes?


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my post again. I agree with you: stricter gun laws won't prevent criminals from getting guns, BUT, I went on to say, this shouldn't be the standard for evaluating the merit of stricter gun laws. I suggested that the standard should be this: stricter gun laws are worth it if they prevent one death without unduly restricting constitutionally protected rights. You addressed none of this.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this a rational basis?
> To what other rights does this rational basis then apply?
> How do you define "undue restriction"?  How is that definition sound?  How does "undue restriction" compare and contrast to "infringement"?
> What "stricter gun law(s)" will prevent one deth?
Click to expand...


Exactly.  What other freedom in the bill of rights is subject to the test that if one death results, then government can take away the freedom?

Can we get rid of Obamacare if one death results?


----------



## Londoner

hunarcy said:


> you continue to advocate limiting the rights of law abiding gun owners (who are the only ones who abide by the law) leading one to believe that your agenda is actually different than the one that you publically claim.  Therefore, your argument ultimately fails.



Provide a link to where I've advocated something that limits the rights of law abiding gun owners.

You didn't read my post. You are just spamming for your agenda. 

I said that the litmus test for a particular law should not be that it prevents all criminals from breaking the law (which is an impossible standard to satisfy), but rather that the standard should be this: an additional law is worth implementing if it limits the offending behavior without trampling constitutionally protected rights. 

Here is the dumbest argument I've heard so far. "Because we _already_ have laws that limit the illegal act, we cannot pass additional laws that further limit the illegal act". By this logic we can't pass additional laws to limit abortion because we already have laws that limit abortion. This is fucking insane. The fact that many sates require parental notification for minors (which is done to limit abortions) doesn't mean that the Pro Life Movement cannot make/new additional proposals. 

Each new proposed law should be evaluated _separately_ to see if it will limit the illegal behavior without interfering with constitutionally protected rights. Moreover: just because some minors in Kentucky will get around the Parental Notification law doesn't mean that the law is useless in preventing some abortions. Nor does it mean that further laws cannot be proposed to achieve the same goal, provided they meet the standard of not trampling constitutionally protected rights. You can do better.


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States.  Guns are stolen in robberies.  There are old guns that aren't on the radar.
> 
> However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future.  If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.
> 
> And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?
> 
> As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown.  Mexico has far less lax security than even we do.  Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border.  Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US.  Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt.  Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.
> 
> Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico?  Just like they do drugs?  What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?
> 
> The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely.  IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns.  What's hard about that?  Why can't you address it?
> 
> And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol.  At what point will people learn from our mistakes?
Click to expand...


Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?
> 
> As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown.  Mexico has far less lax security than even we do.  Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border.  Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US.  Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt.  Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.
> 
> Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico?  Just like they do drugs?  What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?
> 
> The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely.  IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns.  What's hard about that?  Why can't you address it?
> 
> And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol.  At what point will people learn from our mistakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.
Click to expand...


Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do and undid the culture by enacting gun laws.

Not sure why you hesitate to say what country you're from, but you said it has a gun culture.  Seriously, gun owners in your country will just give them up?  It would work to restrict them?  You really believe that?


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> I said that the litmus test for a particular law should not be that it prevents all criminals from breaking the law (which is an impossible standard to satisfy), but rather that the standard should be this: an additional law is worth implementing if it limits the offending behavior without trampling constitutionally protected rights.



The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?
> 
> As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown.  Mexico has far less lax security than even we do.  Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border.  Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US.  Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt.  Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.
> 
> Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico?  Just like they do drugs?  What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?
> 
> The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely.  IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns.  What's hard about that?  Why can't you address it?
> 
> And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol.  At what point will people learn from our mistakes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do and undid the culture by enacting gun laws.
> 
> Not sure why you hesitate to say what country you're from, but you said it has a gun culture.  Seriously, gun owners in your country will just give them up?  It would work to restrict them?  You really believe that?
Click to expand...


We don't have a gun culture where I live. Nice and peaceful. I don't think that there's EVER been a shooting in my town, ever.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who *have a gun culture like we do* ....



And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.

Freudian slip.  

Thanks for playin'.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from Mexican evil-doers getting their guns in the US, countries with stricter gun laws have less gun deaths. Can't get around that. That's not emotion... That's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who have a gun culture like we do and undid the culture by enacting gun laws.
> 
> Not sure why you hesitate to say what country you're from, but you said it has a gun culture.  Seriously, gun owners in your country will just give them up?  It would work to restrict them?  You really believe that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have a gun culture where I live. Nice and peaceful. I don't think that there's EVER been a shooting in my town, ever.
Click to expand...


Why are you evasive about what country you live in?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who *have a gun culture like we do* ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.
> 
> Freudian slip.
> 
> Thanks for playin'.
Click to expand...


No idea what that's supposed to mean.

What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?

Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.

You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.


----------



## Londoner

kaz said:


> The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> What that Constitutional right confuses you?



Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

*A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....*

*The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.

Why? Because to be of any value to a free state, a militia -- a citizen army -- must be organized. It can't be a bunch of free-lancers running around with uncontrolled weapons, killing whomever they please.

And what's the goal?

Security, as explicitly as Madison could make it.

That means safe not only from foreign invaders, but from unconstrained gun bearers killing small children, theater-goers, presidents, civil rights leaders, rock stars, random bystanders and whomever else they fell like it at every whim.

Now we have once again come to know that too many of those within our midst, bearing weapons without constraint, pose the greatest threat of all to the security of our free state.

If we are insecure in the belief that we can send our children to an elementary school and not have them killed, then we are secure in absolutely nothing.

Guns kill people, and guns in the hands of crazy people kill children... and so many others... and we have seen the reality of this far too often not to act.

It has become clearly "necessary to the security of a free state" that the right to bear arms must be "well-regulated," as in an organized militia.
* (The above is an argument by Harry Wasserman)


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> *The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.*


*
Freedom of religion I agree, I don't know what freedom "from" religion means.



Londoner said:





kaz said:



			The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What that Constitutional right confuses you?
		
Click to expand...


Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....

...

But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.
		
Click to expand...


Interesting you use the correct word, "why."  Why is an explanation, not a restriction.

Where 
A = A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
B = The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says because A, B.  I doesn't say B if A.  A stands alone.

And the reason for that is that militias are of the citizenry.  It is up to the people what a militia is, it is not up to government.  Keep in mind what the Constitution is, it's a restriction on Federal government power.

That militias refer to government, like the national guard, would be preposterous.  I didn't see you specifically say that.  But that they would in a limitation of Federal powers say that government can declare itself to be a militia would be absurd.

Similarly if government can even define militias then it's a non right. It would be saying government can decide if you have the right to have a gun or not, that would be a non-right.

Also I hope you realize the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily mean government regulation.  It only makes sense that it's citizen regulated.  Anything else would say they went so far as to include this in 10 specific limitations on government power, then gave the government the power to just decide what the right is and who gets it.

The writings of the founding fathers across the board added a reason for guns that you omitted, protection from our own government.  They were in fact more concerned with that than any other protection.  Again meaning that to believe that government, which they feared, could tell the people what guns they can have and who can have them.  It's completely illogical.*


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Freedom of religion I agree, I don't know what freedom "from" religion means.
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> What that Constitutional right confuses you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....
> 
> ...
> 
> But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you use the correct word, "why."  Why is an explanation, not a restriction.
> 
> Where
> A = A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
> B = The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says because A, B.  I doesn't say B if A.  A stands alone.
> 
> And the reason for that is that militias are of the citizenry.  It is up to the people what a militia is, it is not up to government.  Keep in mind what the Constitution is, it's a restriction on Federal government power.
> 
> That militias refer to government, like the national guard, would be preposterous.  I didn't see you specifically say that.  But that they would in a limitation of Federal powers say that government can declare itself to be a militia would be absurd.
> 
> Similarly if government can even define militias then it's a non right. It would be saying government can decide if you have the right to have a gun or not, that would be a non-right.
> 
> Also I hope you realize the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily mean government regulation.  It only makes sense that it's citizen regulated.  Anything else would say they went so far as to include this in 10 specific limitations on government power, then gave the government the power to just decide what the right is and who gets it.
> 
> The writings of the founding fathers across the board added a reason for guns that you omitted, protection from our own government.  They were in fact more concerned with that than any other protection.  Again meaning that to believe that government, which they feared, could tell the people what guns they can have and who can have them.  It's completely illogical.*
Click to expand...

*
It's illogical to think that the reason the FFs put in the 2nd is still valid today. You're all living in the past.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Londoner said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> you continue to advocate limiting the rights of law abiding gun owners (who are the only ones who abide by the law) leading one to believe that your agenda is actually different than the one that you publically claim.  Therefore, your argument ultimately fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link to where I've advocated something that limits the rights of law abiding gun owners.
> 
> You didn't read my post. You are just spamming for your agenda.
> 
> I said that the litmus test for a particular law should not be that it prevents all criminals from breaking the law (which is an impossible standard to satisfy), but rather that the standard should be this: an additional law is worth implementing if it limits the offending behavior without trampling constitutionally protected rights.
Click to expand...

How is this a rational basis?  How does this meet strict scrutiny?
To what other rights does this rational basis then apply?
How do you define "undue restriction"? How is that definition sound? How does "undue restriction" compare and contrast to "infringement"?
What "stricter gun law(s)" will prevent one death?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Londoner said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> What that Constitutional right confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.
> 
> *A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....*
Click to expand...

The only people confused in this regard are those who want to further limit the rights of the law abiding and refuse to believe that the constitution gets in their way.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and so, any argument based on "...a well regulated militia...: is a non-starter.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> It's illogical to think that the reason the FFs put in the 2nd is still valid today. You're all living in the past.


On the contrary - only the ignorant believe that it applies any less today than it did back then.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one with a diverse culture like we have, who *have a gun culture like we do* ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.
> 
> Freudian slip.
> 
> Thanks for playin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?
> 
> Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.
> 
> You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.
Click to expand...


Oh poster please.  All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.

I offered no "contradictions".  You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.

Where are they then?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The First Amendment bluntly asserts our natural right to freedom of and from religion, and to democratic dialog and belief.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Freedom of religion I agree, I don't know what freedom "from" religion means.
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz, with all do respect, you make it confusing when you don't flesh out the full context.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....
> 
> ...
> 
> But the Second is compelled to say why. And it starts with a monumental hyphenation: well-regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you use the correct word, "why."  Why is an explanation, not a restriction.
> 
> Where
> A = A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
> B = The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says because A, B.  I doesn't say B if A.  A stands alone.
> 
> And the reason for that is that militias are of the citizenry.  It is up to the people what a militia is, it is not up to government.  Keep in mind what the Constitution is, it's a restriction on Federal government power.
> 
> That militias refer to government, like the national guard, would be preposterous.  I didn't see you specifically say that.  But that they would in a limitation of Federal powers say that government can declare itself to be a militia would be absurd.
> 
> Similarly if government can even define militias then it's a non right. It would be saying government can decide if you have the right to have a gun or not, that would be a non-right.
> 
> Also I hope you realize the word "regulated" doesn't necessarily mean government regulation.  It only makes sense that it's citizen regulated.  Anything else would say they went so far as to include this in 10 specific limitations on government power, then gave the government the power to just decide what the right is and who gets it.
> 
> The writings of the founding fathers across the board added a reason for guns that you omitted, protection from our own government.  They were in fact more concerned with that than any other protection.  Again meaning that to believe that government, which they feared, could tell the people what guns they can have and who can have them.  It's completely illogical.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It's illogical to think that the reason the FFs put in the 2nd is still valid today. You're all living in the past.*
Click to expand...

*

The ff's thought of that.  The constitution can be changed by 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  Until that happens the 2nd is as valid as they day they wrote it.*


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you were trying to pretend you didn't get my point.
> 
> Freudian slip.
> 
> Thanks for playin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?
> 
> Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.
> 
> You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh poster please.  All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.
> 
> I offered no "contradictions".  You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.
> 
> Where are they then?
Click to expand...


I already showed you.  In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.


----------



## Geaux4it

I wonder why this is still a topic? It has to be more than why is this still a topic. lol

It is however a good central location to identify all the anti-american gun grabbing  loons

The left are getting killed here, no pun intended.

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> I wonder why this is still a topic? It has to be more than why is this still a topic. lol
> 
> It is however a good central location to identify all the anti-american gun grabbing  loons
> 
> The left are getting killed here, no pun intended.
> 
> -Geaux



122 pages and not one liberal has answered the simple question in the op.  if any kid can get as much drugs, which are outright illegal, as they want, why would any criminal not be able to get as many guns as they want?

The US and the rest of the world are full of both.  Organized crime loved prohibition, they love the war on drugs and they would love more gun restrictions for the same reason, it then becomes a market for them.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> What is your view on gun laws since your transactional points all contradict each other?
> 
> Liberalism is a transactional ideology where your positions and arguments all endlessly contradict each other.
> 
> You're afraid now to just plainly state your clear and complete view because even you know I'm going to take you apart with your quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poster please.  All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.
> 
> I offered no "contradictions".  You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.
> 
> Where are they then?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already showed you.  In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.
Click to expand...


Still emptyhanded.  OK then.  You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying.  But nooooo...

If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning.  My position is that the question is _irrelevant_, because its premise ignores the underlying issue.  And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded.  The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.

When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly.  And that's why I didn't.

Duh.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poster please.  All you "take apart" is your own credibility trying to put words in others' mouths.
> 
> I offered no "contradictions".  You're STILL free to quote where I did, as you were yesterday when you failed to find any.
> 
> Where are they then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed you.  In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still emptyhanded.  OK then.  You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying.  But nooooo...
> 
> If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning.  My position is that the question is _irrelevant_, because its premise ignores the underlying issue.  And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded.  The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.
> 
> When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly.  And that's why I didn't.
> 
> Duh.
Click to expand...


So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position.  Stereotypical liberal.

You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation."  You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them.  So obviously you realize that criminals will get them.  But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already showed you.  In the meantime, your refusal to just state your view or directly answer the op in a thread you're actively participating in speaks for itself, it's just a chicken dance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still emptyhanded.  OK then.  You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying.  But nooooo...
> 
> If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning.  My position is that the question is _irrelevant_, because its premise ignores the underlying issue.  And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded.  The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.
> 
> When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly.  And that's why I didn't.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position.  Stereotypical liberal.
> 
> You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation."  You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them.  So obviously you realize that criminals will get them.  But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.
Click to expand...


That's your idiotically specious conclusion after putting my posts through some kind of mental blender.  There is no "contradiction".  That's uh, why you failed to find one.

This is entirely over your head.  You're wasting my time.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still emptyhanded.  OK then.  You could just cut to the chase and admit to lying.  But nooooo...
> 
> If I had intended to address the OP directly, I would have chimed in at the beginning.  My position is that the question is _irrelevant_, because its premise ignores the underlying issue.  And that would be the same issue you articulated and I bolded.  The same issue that brought me to join this forum a year ago after Jovan Belcher.
> 
> When the premise is irrelevant, there's no point in addressing it directly.  And that's why I didn't.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position.  Stereotypical liberal.
> 
> You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation."  You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them.  So obviously you realize that criminals will get them.  But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's your idiotically specious conclusion after putting my posts through some kind of mental blender.  There is no "contradiction".  That's uh, why you failed to find one.
> 
> This is entirely over your head.  You're wasting my time.
Click to expand...


Your aversion to just clearly and completely stating your view is what's wasting your time.

Here's the bottom line though, Pogo.  I told you what posts appear completely contradictory.  They do.  If you had intellectual integrity and I missed your point, just reading those posts you would have said, aha, I see what's confusing you.  Let me clarify.  Instead you went with you don't get it.  What all of you liberals have in common is that none of you can directly address the point, gun laws keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens, they do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals.  There is nothing different to your dance around that point to any of the other liberals doing it.

If you had an answer, you'd be glad to share it.


----------



## boedicca

The Reactionary Liberal Plan for Keeping Guns from Criminals:

1.  Make all guns illegal, thus turning all gun owners into criminals.
2.  Declare a National Emergency with strict curfews and suspension of rights protected by the Constitution due to the country being overrun by criminals.
3.  Cut off the internet, and provide only one way communication via government controlled media in order to Control The Narrative.
4.  Unleash the vast army of SEIU-ACORN and other Thugs to make examples of "criminals" in an attempt to intimidate the ones who are still holding onto their guns.
5.  Conduct a few drone strikes to eliminate concentrations of "criminals", and use the collateral damage of dead children to whip up public anger against the "criminals".
6.  Continue this until the public spirit is completely broken down and neighbors turn in neighbors in a futile attempt to shield themselves from the totalitarian enforcement actions.
7.  Declare Obama Dear Leader for Life.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you went with a bunch of contradictory transactional arguments without committing to any actual position.  Stereotypical liberal.
> 
> You said the answer to guns is not more guns and shooting back at criminals is "escalation."  You also said that government cannot get rid of guns by banning them.  So obviously you realize that criminals will get them.  But you're not saying that it's better for only criminals to have guns, even though that is the sum of your transactional arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's your idiotically specious conclusion after putting my posts through some kind of mental blender.  There is no "contradiction".  That's uh, why you failed to find one.
> 
> This is entirely over your head.  You're wasting my time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your aversion to just clearly and completely stating your view is what's wasting your time.
> 
> Here's the bottom line though, Pogo.  I told you what posts appear completely contradictory.  They do.  If you had intellectual integrity and I missed your point, just reading those posts you would have said, aha, I see what's confusing you.  Let me clarify.  Instead you went with you don't get it.  What all of you liberals have in common is that none of you can directly address the point, gun laws keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens, they do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals.  There is nothing different to your dance around that point to any of the other liberals doing it.
> 
> If you had an answer, you'd be glad to share it.
Click to expand...


For the umpteenth time ------- I have no answer when there is no question.

You've been yapping and yapping about a 'contradiction', yet every time I invite you to show it, you come up empty.  Now what the fuck does that tell you?

It's not my job to make your point for you.  What part of that escapes you?

Again, your leaning on crutches of lumping anyone you fail to understand into little blanket-statement prefab boxes is evidence enough of your dearth of rational thought.  That dearth is why you're not worth my time.

Come back when you learn how to think.


----------



## boedicca

Pogo said:


> Come back when you learn how to think.




You first, poopsie.


----------



## Pogo

boedicca said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come back when you learn how to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You first, poopsie.
Click to expand...


Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious


----------



## Geaux4it

LMAO- I have not witnessed such hot air from the libs like this in some time. Like their opinion means anything when it comes to infringing on law abiding citizens rights.

When will they learn the tantrums relative to gun control are futile

-Geaux


----------



## boedicca

Pogo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come back when you learn how to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You first, poopsie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious
Click to expand...



It wasn't exactly a PM, dipsy-doodlely-poo.


----------



## Pogo

boedicca said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first, poopsie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't exactly a PM, dipsy-doodlely-poo.
Click to expand...


Sure wasn't Bo-dee-oh-do-ski.  But it is out of context.  Kaz is the one determined to invent conflicts that don't exist; I have no quarrel with you, Wicca-dicca.

Besides...

Time to eat


----------



## francoHFW

Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies, punish miscreants- simple, intelligent, reasonable, will take time to have effect. Where the hell do you get your bs propaganda...as if everyone doesn't know- a disgrace.


----------



## boedicca

Pogo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't exactly a PM, dipsy-doodlely-poo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure wasn't Bo-dee-oh-do-ski.  But it is out of context.  Kaz is the one determined to invent conflicts that don't exist; I have no quarrel with you, Wicca-dicca.
> 
> Besides...
> 
> Time to eat
Click to expand...



Hasta la pasta
Pogo Pogo bo bogo
Banana fana fo fogo
me mi mo mogo
POGO


----------



## boedicca

francoHFW said:


> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies, punish miscreants- simple, intelligent, reasonable, will take time to have effect. Where the hell do you get your bs propaganda...as if everyone doesn't know- a disgrace.




Translation: totalitarian state in which only the politically approved elites are allowed to have armed body guards.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies... simple, intelligent, reasonable...


... unconstitutiuonal.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you, Bodelicious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't exactly a PM, dipsy-doodlely-poo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure wasn't Bo-dee-oh-do-ski.  But it is out of context.  Kaz is the one determined to invent conflicts that don't exist; I have no quarrel with you, Wicca-dicca.
> 
> Besides...
> 
> Time to eat
Click to expand...


We can go one of two ways.

1)  You could simply state your view, in which case your transactional arguments will all make sense.  And in the unlikely event I have a point on a transactional argument you made, I have a framework to ask it.

2)  I can go through all your transactional arguments and you can sit back and continue to give vague, evasive answers to my points.

Obviously since you have no answer you prefer choice #2.  That's fine, but don't pretend you're taking the high road.


----------



## Spoonman

I'm still waiting to see a gun grabber put forth a plan that doesn't violate our rights.  i'm still waiting for a liberal to put forth a plan that  doesn't fly in the face of hypocrisy when compared to their stance on a national id for voting.   Liberals show over and over they are not about compromise.  guns, abortion, the national budget.  it doesn't matter.    if you seriously what to put controls on senseless deaths you best stop trying to infringe on our rights.  Because that is something we are not going to accept


----------



## Spoonman

MonaGonna said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
Click to expand...


not true at all


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
Click to expand...


Como?

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies... simple, intelligent, reasonable...
> 
> 
> 
> ... unconstitutiuonal.
Click to expand...


Obviously not, hater dupe, even according to our present RW SCOTUS.


----------



## Geaux4it

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies... simple, intelligent, reasonable...
> 
> 
> 
> ... unconstitutiuonal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not, hater dupe, even according to our present RW SCOTUS.
Click to expand...


I don't know who's the bigger buffoon. Roberts or O'dummer

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

boedicca said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies, punish miscreants- simple, intelligent, reasonable, will take time to have effect. Where the hell do you get your bs propaganda...as if everyone doesn't know- a disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: totalitarian state in which only the politically approved elites are allowed to have armed body guards.
Click to expand...


WTF is wrong with you LOL....actually the world knows- you're a brainwashed and fear mongered paranoid functional moron...get a grip lol...


----------



## francoHFW

Geaux4it said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... unconstitutiuonal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not, hater dupe, even according to our present RW SCOTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know who's the bigger buffoon. Roberts or O'dummer
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


World says Beck, you, or your local RW RANTER...


----------



## jon_berzerk

Spoonman said:


> I'm still waiting to see a gun grabber put forth a plan that doesn't violate our rights.  i'm still waiting for a liberal to put forth a plan that  doesn't fly in the face of hypocrisy when compared to their stance on a national id for voting.   Liberals show over and over they are not about compromise.  guns, abortion, the national budget.  it doesn't matter.    if you seriously what to put controls on senseless deaths you best stop trying to infringe on our rights.  Because that is something we are not going to accept



*I'm still waiting to see a gun grabber put forth a plan that doesn't violate our rights.  i'm still waiting for a liberal to put forth a plan that  doesn't fly in the face of hypocrisy when compared to their stance on a national id for voting.*

you will be waiting a long time 

it isnt going to happen


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a lot of guns are smuggled into the United States.  Guns are stolen in robberies.  There are old guns that aren't on the radar.
> 
> However, that's irrelevant to the argument, which is not about the past, it's about the future.  If you clamp down on them, then in addition to the current massive gun inventory, gun dealers can simply smuggle them in across the open border with Mexico like they do drugs.
> 
> And the people who want gun restrictions, liberals, are the same people who demonize anyone who tries to do anything to restrict free access to the US from Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> I may be wrong, but aren't the guns coming from Mexico US made? Does Mexico even make guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are and some are not US made, but again, what is the relevance of that since we are talking going forward?
> 
> As for Mexico, most drugs smuggled from Mexico are not Mexican grown.  Mexico has far less lax security than even we do.  Al Qaeda could fly to Mexico city and walk across the border.  Smuggling drugs into Mexico is simple, then you just take them across the border to the US.  Mexican officials are also notoriously corrupt.  Basically you can get anyone or anything into Mexico and once it's in Mexico you just take it across the border.
> 
> Do you not grasp that if guns are clamped down on in the US, then bad guys have more incentive to bring them in from Mexico?  Just like they do drugs?  What is the relevance of your harping on what they do now specifically when the question is what will happen once guns are illegal or more restricted?
> 
> The point of the op is that drugs are illegal now, yet even teenagers can get them freely.  IF ... you make guns illegal or harder to get ... THEN ... criminals can simply do what they do with drugs now with guns.  What's hard about that?  Why can't you address it?
> 
> And BTW, that's what happened with alcohol in prohibition, all you did was fund organized crime, anyone could still get alcohol.  At what point will people learn from our mistakes?
Click to expand...


*Does Mexico even make guns?*

hundreds of thousands of ak-47s have come from south america


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies... simple, intelligent, reasonable...
> 
> 
> 
> ... unconstitutiuonal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously not, hater dupe, even according to our present RW SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

This is, of  course, a lie, in that you know you cannot cite the SCotUS ruling that upholds universal background checks and "limits" on magazines.


----------



## kaz

francoHFW said:


> Background checks for everyone, limit on magazies, punish miscreants- simple, intelligent, reasonable, will take time to have effect. Where the hell do you get your bs propaganda...as if everyone doesn't know- a disgrace.



You missed the op because it wasn't on MS-NBC, so I'll summarize it for you.  I'd say pretend I'm Al Sharpton, but then you'd just memorize what I said.  And I'm asking you a question.

So on your plan, so then why would criminals just not buy illegal guns?  Why would they bother dealing with your rules?  As you would know if Ed Shultz or another Democratic talking head had said it, any high school kid can buy all the pot or other drugs they want and that's actually illegal.  How are you going to keep any of the millions of guns in the US or millions more in the rest of the world away from criminals.

Um...dude, take your eyes of Rachel Maddow's breasts and focus on the question.  Trust me, you're not her type...


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting to see a gun grabber put forth a plan that doesn't violate our rights.  i'm still waiting for a liberal to put forth a plan that  doesn't fly in the face of hypocrisy when compared to their stance on a national id for voting.   Liberals show over and over they are not about compromise.  guns, abortion, the national budget.  it doesn't matter.    if you seriously what to put controls on senseless deaths you best stop trying to infringe on our rights.  Because that is something we are not going to accept
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm still waiting to see a gun grabber put forth a plan that doesn't violate our rights.  i'm still waiting for a liberal to put forth a plan that  doesn't fly in the face of hypocrisy when compared to their stance on a national id for voting.*
> 
> you will be waiting a long time
> 
> it isnt going to happen
Click to expand...


They don't even understand the question.  They believe that government power and our rights are the same thing.  Government will have guns.  So what's the issue?


----------



## Bern80

MonaGonna said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, so what's your plan again to help stop people from shooting up a school with assault weapons? It must have been so good I forgot what it is. Were you the one who wanted to put more emphasis on mental health treatment then on trying to keep weirdo guns away from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?
Click to expand...


Nothing is difficult to understand. What seems hard for YOU to understand is the inconsistency of the above statement. It's the equivalent of saying countries with fewer cars have fewer car accidents therefore we should ban cars.


----------



## kaz

Bern80 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was me. And weirdo guns? That's nonsensical. How can an inanimate object be 'weirdo'? Your position is just wholly illogical and disproportionate. A kid shoots up his class mates. Your solution is ignore what the kid did and focus on what he used to express his anger. Your solution is take that object away from millions of people that aren't a threat to anyone as a means of preventing this singular event in the future. Again that's just nonsensical. It would be much more efficient to recognize that certain people are a danger to themselves and society. Better yet, shouldn't we be trying to help these people. Can't you imagine the pain and confusion someone must feel to resort to shooting up their classmates and themselves? And you just want to ignore that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is difficult to understand. What seems hard for YOU to understand is the inconsistency of the above statement. It's the equivalent of saying countries with fewer cars have fewer car accidents therefore we should ban cars.
Click to expand...


There are millions and millions of guns.  Most are used for hunting, target practice or just collected.  A bunch more are in the home or carried for defense.  A tiny, tiny fraction are used to commit crimes.

The idea that in countries that don't and never did have a gun culture they can largely restrict guns means that in a country that does have a gun culture with no other explanation is just vacuous.

And they ignore that there are plenty of other ways to kill people and commit violent crimes besides guns.  There is just the assumption that it would work.


----------



## MonaGonna

Spoonman said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Someone had to buy their gun(s) legally*
> 
> in the case of obamas fast n furious
> 
> the answer is NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not true at all
Click to expand...


So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's very rare that shit like that happens in countries where guns are strictly controlled. In the US, it happens all the time. What's so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is difficult to understand. What seems hard for YOU to understand is the inconsistency of the above statement. It's the equivalent of saying countries with fewer cars have fewer car accidents therefore we should ban cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are millions and millions of guns.  Most are used for hunting, target practice or just collected.  A bunch more are in the home or carried for defense.  A tiny, tiny fraction are used to commit crimes.
> 
> *The idea that in countries that don't and never did have a gun culture they can largely restrict guns means that in a country that does have a gun culture with no other explanation is just vacuous.*
> 
> And they ignore that there are plenty of other ways to kill people and commit violent crimes besides guns.  There is just the assumption that it would work.
Click to expand...


Bravo! You got it!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is difficult to understand. What seems hard for YOU to understand is the inconsistency of the above statement. It's the equivalent of saying countries with fewer cars have fewer car accidents therefore we should ban cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions and millions of guns.  Most are used for hunting, target practice or just collected.  A bunch more are in the home or carried for defense.  A tiny, tiny fraction are used to commit crimes.
> 
> *The idea that in countries that don't and never did have a gun culture they can largely restrict guns means that in a country that does have a gun culture with no other explanation is just vacuous.*
> 
> And they ignore that there are plenty of other ways to kill people and commit violent crimes besides guns.  There is just the assumption that it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bravo! You got it!
Click to expand...


Got what? That you are a moron?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is difficult to understand. What seems hard for YOU to understand is the inconsistency of the above statement. It's the equivalent of saying countries with fewer cars have fewer car accidents therefore we should ban cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are millions and millions of guns.  Most are used for hunting, target practice or just collected.  A bunch more are in the home or carried for defense.  A tiny, tiny fraction are used to commit crimes.
> 
> *The idea that in countries that don't and never did have a gun culture they can largely restrict guns means that in a country that does have a gun culture with no other explanation is just vacuous.*
> 
> And they ignore that there are plenty of other ways to kill people and commit violent crimes besides guns.  There is just the assumption that it would work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bravo! You got it!
Click to expand...


Hmm...but that's what you keep proposing.  So you knew what you said we should do was a stupid idea and would never work when you said it?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> A gun can't be purchased illegally to start with, all guns start out being bought legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not true at all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?
Click to expand...


If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?


----------



## jon_berzerk

*TED CRUZ EXPLAINS TO TRAYVON MARTINS MOTHER HOW STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS HELP PROTECT THE BLACK COMMUNITY*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQAr47xF21k#t=177]Ted Cruz Tells Trayvon's Mother Why Stand Your Ground Laws Can't Possibly Be 'Racist' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jon_berzerk

jon_berzerk said:


> *TED CRUZ EXPLAINS TO TRAYVON MARTINS MOTHER HOW STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS HELP PROTECT THE BLACK COMMUNITY*
> 
> Ted Cruz Tells Trayvon's Mother Why Stand Your Ground Laws Can't Possibly Be 'Racist' - YouTube



Andrew Branca at legal insurrection 

has a nice recap of the hearing 


US Senate | Stand-Your-Ground | Ted Cruz | Trayvon Martin


----------



## MonaGonna

kaz said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> not true at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
Click to expand...


Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
Click to expand...


Without guns, how do I protect my family?

Clamp down on people who use guns illegally. Let law abiding Americans assist through constitutional carry. 

Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed.

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Without guns, how do I protect my family?*
> 
> Clamp down on people who use guns illegally. Let law abiding Americans assist through constitutional carry.
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.

"Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
Click to expand...


That has got to be the dumbest thing you have ever said.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without guns, how do I protect my family?*
> 
> Clamp down on people who use guns illegally. Let law abiding Americans assist through constitutional carry.
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.
> 
> "Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Without guns, how do I protect my family?*
> 
> Clamp down on people who use guns illegally. Let law abiding Americans assist through constitutional carry.
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.
> 
> "Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!
Click to expand...

We need some that actually work.


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.
> 
> "Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need some that actually work.
Click to expand...


We need feds enforce the ones we have 

-Geaux


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.
> 
> "Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need some that actually work.
Click to expand...


Prove the ones we have aren't working and then offer ones you _think_ will.

Please be specific and use credible sources.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Geaux4it said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> We need some that actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need feds enforce the ones we have
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Which ones are not enforced?


----------



## Geaux4it

Lonestar_logic said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need some that actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need feds enforce the ones we have
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which ones are not enforced?
Click to expand...


Holder et al is what I meant

-Geaux


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Geaux4it said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need feds enforce the ones we have
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are not enforced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holder et al is what I meant
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Hard to enforce a law when he's the one breaking it.


----------



## Geaux4it

Lonestar_logic said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones are not enforced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holder et al is what I meant
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to enforce a law when he's the one breaking it.
Click to expand...


Exactly

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

Lonestar_logic said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> We need some that actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove the ones we have aren't working and then offer ones you _think_ will.
> 
> Please be specific and use credible sources.
Click to expand...


300 million guns out there and 9,600 gun deaths, not to mention the wounded and the robbed. Guns spilling into Mexico help cause 11,000 gun deaths there in one year. Gun crazy culture that's out of control. The NRA imbeciles. People with low IQ owning all kinds of nasty weapons. Tons of people like you who don't see a problem and need to sell as many guns as they can to make money.  ...


----------



## Geaux4it

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need some that actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove the ones we have aren't working and then offer ones you _think_ will.
> 
> Please be specific and use credible sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 million guns out there and 9,600 gun deaths, not to mention the wounded and the robbed. Guns spilling into Mexico help cause 11,000 gun deaths there in one year. Gun crazy culture that's out of control. The NRA imbeciles. People with low IQ owning all kinds of nasty weapons. Tons of people like you who don't see a problem and need to sell as many guns as they can to make money.  ...
Click to expand...


I don't sell, I buy as many as I can... 

-Geaux


----------



## MonaGonna

^^^^^^^^^^ See what I'm saying?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need some that actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove the ones we have aren't working and then offer ones you _think_ will.
> 
> Please be specific and use credible sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300 million guns out there and 9,600 gun deaths, not to mention the wounded and the robbed. Guns spilling into Mexico help cause 11,000 gun deaths there in one year. Gun crazy culture that's out of control. The NRA imbeciles. People with low IQ owning all kinds of nasty weapons. Tons of people like you who don't see a problem and need to sell as many guns as they can to make money.  ...
Click to expand...


Ok, now link everything you stated to inferior enforcement.

And again offer laws you think will work.

And please do try to use credible sources.

When you start throwing figures out it helps to back them up.

On a side note, you're blaming the death rate in Mexico on what you perceive to be weak enforcement on the USA's part?

That's quite a stretch.


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
Click to expand...


Yes you do, because that's just stupid and irrelevant.  Nobody argued that legal US manufacturers would sell them on the black market.  What does that have to do with anything?  What difference does that make?  There are plenty of international arms manufacturers and guns are already everywhere.  Seriously, have you been reading the discussion?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Without guns, how do I protect my family?*
> 
> Clamp down on people who use guns illegally. Let law abiding Americans assist through constitutional carry.
> 
> Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.
> 
> "Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.
Click to expand...


Same question you keep evading.  So you restrict sales of guns to honest citizens without doing anything about illegal sales to criminals, and that helps the situation how exactly?


----------



## kaz

MonaGonna said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I guess I need to go through it word by word, lol.
> 
> "Clamp down", does not mean take everyone's guns away, it means restrict the sales of guns. Right now, there are no restrictions, or meaningless ones that obviously don't work. Find some that do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I own a gun store. There ARE restrictions!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need some that actually work.
Click to expand...


Which is the question in the op you have no answer for.  Propose some that would work, so far you have only proposed restrictions on sales to honest citizens who follow the law.

Did you know that criminals are willing to break the law?  Think about it, they are ...  wait for it ... criminals.  You are still not getting that dynamic.


----------



## LawSelfDefense

jon_berzerk said:
			
		

> Ted Cruz Tells Trayvon's Mother Why Stand Your Ground Laws Can't Possibly Be 'Racist' - YouTube
> 
> Andrew Branca at legal insurrection
> 
> has a nice recap of the hearing



Hey, thanks for the kind words, it's much appreciated!

--Andrew,  [MENTION=45815]LawSelfDefense[/MENTION]


----------



## M14 Shooter

MonaGonna said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun manufacturers make guns and sell them illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
Click to expand...

MonaGonna  
Banned


----------



## RetiredGySgt

M14 Shooter said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean existing, legal gun manufacturers, probably not.  What is the relevance of your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MonaGonna
> Banned
Click to expand...


To bad we can not ask why )


----------



## jon_berzerk

RetiredGySgt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clamp down on the people selling legal guns and you won't have so many illegal ones. Pretty simple concept actually. Do you need me to go through it word by word with you?
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna
> Banned
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To bad we can not ask why )
Click to expand...


bummer 

--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk

LawSelfDefense said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Tells Trayvon's Mother Why Stand Your Ground Laws Can't Possibly Be 'Racist' - YouTube
> 
> Andrew Branca at legal insurrection
> 
> has a nice recap of the hearing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, thanks for the kind words, it's much appreciated!
> 
> --Andrew,  [MENTION=45815]LawSelfDefense[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Anytime. You have some real informative information.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/


----------



## kaz

Did anyone notice the LA shooter was stopped with guns?  What's up with that?

The TSA agents who shot back should have been disciplined for escalating the situation, right Pogo?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Did anyone notice the LA shooter was stopped with guns?  What's up with that?
> 
> The TSA agents who shot back should have been disciplined for escalating the situation, right Pogo?



Because a culture obsessed with gun-on-gun media porn is a healthy one -- right Kaz?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone notice the LA shooter was stopped with guns?  What's up with that?
> 
> The TSA agents who shot back should have been disciplined for escalating the situation, right Pogo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a culture obsessed with gun-on-gun media porn is a healthy one -- right Kaz?
Click to expand...


Can you ask me a question that is in some way connected to an actual point I've made in the real world instead of in your head?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone notice the LA shooter was stopped with guns?  What's up with that?
> 
> The TSA agents who shot back should have been disciplined for escalating the situation, right Pogo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because a culture obsessed with gun-on-gun media porn is a healthy one -- right Kaz?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you ask me a question that is in some way connected to an actual point I've made in the real world instead of in your head?
Click to expand...


Just did.


----------



## Spoonman

if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because a culture obsessed with gun-on-gun media porn is a healthy one -- right Kaz?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you ask me a question that is in some way connected to an actual point I've made in the real world instead of in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just did.
Click to expand...


Actually, recognizing a situation where it takes a gun to stop a nut with a gun doesn't take a position either way on whether I'm in favor of a gun culture or not.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course



The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.

Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course



You're quite right about Hollyweird, television, and you didn't mention the gaming "industry".  Music, well that more or less reflects what's already there; it's not a _visual _medium, which is a crucial distinction.

But none of those industries are even political, let alone "liberal".  That's just simple capitalism, making money on the LCD.  And what's in that LCD depends on the cultural values already there, and voilà, we're back to the gun fetishism.

Nice try at trying to make a cultural aspect into a political one, but it's a non-starter.

Nice try at Doublethink too, mentioning the NRA and then trying to claim it's _somebody else_ that's in it for profit.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
Click to expand...


By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it. 

You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
Click to expand...


Indians were wrong to shoot back, they were escalating the situation.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indians were wrong to shoot back, they were escalating the situation.
Click to expand...


Umm... they were using arrows until we got here.  You could look it up.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indians were wrong to shoot back, they were escalating the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm... they were using arrows until we got here.  You could look it up.
Click to expand...


Logical flow isn't your forte.

That doesn't change that when we came they acquired a lust for a gun culture, and then when we shot at them they shot back and escalated the situation.


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
Click to expand...


yes, but it is only recently that guns have become a status kill weapon.  The Adam Lanza's never fought the british


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
Click to expand...


then why don't the british have a high incidece of gun deaths


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indians were wrong to shoot back, they were escalating the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... they were using arrows until we got here.  You could look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical flow isn't your forte.
> 
> That doesn't change that when we came they acquired a lust for a gun culture, and then when we shot at them they shot back and escalated the situation.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Captain Miss-the-point.  

We ain't talking about Indian culture; we're talking about _our own_.

WHO brought guns to the Indians?
Now in place of Indians substitute "criminals"... "drug runners"...  "gangs" ... "terrorists"...  "mass shooters".... lather, rinse, repeat.  Let me know when it sinks in.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then why don't the british have a high incidece of gun deaths
Click to expand...


They don't have a gun culture.  Q.E.D.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... they were using arrows until we got here.  You could look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logical flow isn't your forte.
> 
> That doesn't change that when we came they acquired a lust for a gun culture, and then when we shot at them they shot back and escalated the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, Captain Miss-the-point.
> 
> We ain't talking about Indian culture; we're talking about _our own_.
> 
> WHO brought guns to the Indians?
> Now in place of Indians substitute "criminals"... "drug runners"...  "gangs" ... "terrorists"...  "mass shooters".... lather, rinse, repeat.  Let me know when it sinks in.
Click to expand...


Why is a gun culture only bad when we're the ones doing it?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why don't the british have a high incidece of gun deaths
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have a gun culture.  Q.E.D.
Click to expand...


Which is irrelevant to the US, we do and a long history it is.  And you've presented zero with regard to change it.  Smugly looking down on it isn't actually an argument.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals.  that's right liberals.    liberal hollywood.  movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light.  Its good to be the bad boy.  the liberal music industry.   just listen to todays music.  again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away.       liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts.   THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership.     the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it.  for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
Click to expand...


I got what exactly?  I keep asking you what you're arguing and you just dance and evade and make contradictory transactional arguments.


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why don't the british have a high incidece of gun deaths
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have a gun culture.  Q.E.D.
Click to expand...


but they fought the same wars we fought.  so it can't be the wars that created the gun culture


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why don't the british have a high incidece of gun deaths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a gun culture.  Q.E.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they fought the same wars we fought.  so it can't be the wars that created the gun culture
Click to expand...


They were fought them where we live, not where they do.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why don't the british have a high incidece of gun deaths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have a gun culture.  Q.E.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but they fought the same wars we fought.  so it can't be the wars that created the gun culture
Click to expand...


Nope, never said it was.  Almost everybody has wars, with our without guns.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logical flow isn't your forte.
> 
> That doesn't change that when we came they acquired a lust for a gun culture, and then when we shot at them they shot back and escalated the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Captain Miss-the-point.
> 
> We ain't talking about Indian culture; we're talking about _our own_.
> 
> WHO brought guns to the Indians?
> Now in place of Indians substitute "criminals"... "drug runners"...  "gangs" ... "terrorists"...  "mass shooters".... lather, rinse, repeat.  Let me know when it sinks in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a gun culture only bad when we're the ones doing it?
Click to expand...


Nobody said that either.  Strawman much?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals certainly to your point are doing nothing productive regarding the gun culture, but I have a hard time saying they are to "blame" for it.
> 
> Our history was fighting with the British against their enemies in Europe and their allies in the Americas to conquer the new world and against them to free ourselves from them while we hunted and defended ourselves, our families and our properties.  Guns were deeply in our culture long before modern liberalism came along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got what exactly?  I keep asking you what you're arguing and you just dance and evade and make contradictory transactional arguments.
Click to expand...


Look, it ain't my job to do your thinking for you.  The point, you just cited yourself in the post before this one.  Declaring "contradictions" just because the topic is inconvenient, doesn't wash.

And we did this before-- when I invited you to cite these "contradictions" you came up empty.  If you can't explain your point, it just might be possible you don't have one.


----------



## Geaux4it

There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.

In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Captain Miss-the-point.
> 
> We ain't talking about Indian culture; we're talking about _our own_.
> 
> WHO brought guns to the Indians?
> Now in place of Indians substitute "criminals"... "drug runners"...  "gangs" ... "terrorists"...  "mass shooters".... lather, rinse, repeat.  Let me know when it sinks in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is a gun culture only bad when we're the ones doing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said that either.  Strawman much?
Click to expand...


It looks like a question to me


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> By George, I think you just got it, or at least part of it.
> 
> You can continue with the wild west and the "only good Indian is a dead Indian"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got what exactly?  I keep asking you what you're arguing and you just dance and evade and make contradictory transactional arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, it ain't my job to do your thinking for you.  The point, you just cited yourself in the post before this one.  Declaring "contradictions" just because the topic is inconvenient, doesn't wash.
> 
> And we did this before-- when I invited you to cite these "contradictions" you came up empty.  If you can't explain your point, it just might be possible you don't have one.
Click to expand...


I see, so when I ask you what you are arguing, and you tell me to tell you, that's me asking you to do my thinking for me.

You may not be much of a debater, but you do like to...


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.



Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant.  When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.

Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography.  More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.

Sorry but this is just way too facile.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got what exactly?  I keep asking you what you're arguing and you just dance and evade and make contradictory transactional arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it ain't my job to do your thinking for you.  The point, you just cited yourself in the post before this one.  Declaring "contradictions" just because the topic is inconvenient, doesn't wash.
> 
> And we did this before-- when I invited you to cite these "contradictions" you came up empty.  If you can't explain your point, it just might be possible you don't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so when I ask you what you are arguing, and you tell me to tell you, that's me asking you to do my thinking for me.
> 
> You may not be much of a debater, but you do like to...
Click to expand...


Soooo --- still can't find any, huh.  You might as well go to the ignore bin.  You have no points; all you can do is make shit up.

As already noted -- if there were contradictions you could quote them.  And you can't.  You lose.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it ain't my job to do your thinking for you.  The point, you just cited yourself in the post before this one.  Declaring "contradictions" just because the topic is inconvenient, doesn't wash.
> 
> And we did this before-- when I invited you to cite these "contradictions" you came up empty.  If you can't explain your point, it just might be possible you don't have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so when I ask you what you are arguing, and you tell me to tell you, that's me asking you to do my thinking for me.
> 
> You may not be much of a debater, but you do like to...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soooo --- still can't find any, huh.  You might as well go to the ignore bin.  You have no points; all you can do is make shit up.
> 
> As already noted -- if there were contradictions you could quote them.  And you can't.  You lose.
Click to expand...


Cool.  I have a question for you though.  We're on page 128, what exactly are you arguing?


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant.  When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography.  More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
Click to expand...


So firearms are is not the cause of death?

-Geaux


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant.  When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography.  More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.



*Does the Homicide Map from the Geneva Declaration on  Armed Violence in conjunction with the UN Office on Drug and Crime Help you understand it any better?*







Let me find the one where it compares gun ownership to firearm murders.
You will be more surprised to find out that the less guns there are per capita in most places ... The more firearm murders there are (because it is only the bad people that own the guns in those places).

.


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant.  When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography.  More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So firearms are is not the cause of death?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


He also doesn't know what the word "extrapolation" means.


----------



## freedombecki

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals. that's right liberals. liberal hollywood. movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light. Its good to be the bad boy. the liberal music industry. just listen to todays music. again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away. liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts. THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership. the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it. for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite right about Hollyweird, television, and you didn't mention the gaming "industry". Music, well that more or less reflects what's already there; it's not a _visual _medium, which is a crucial distinction.
> 
> But none of those industries are even political, let alone "liberal". That's just simple capitalism, making money on the LCD. And what's in that LCD depends on the cultural values already there, and voilà, we're back to the gun fetishism.
> 
> Nice try at trying to make a cultural aspect into a political one, but it's a non-starter.
> 
> Nice try at Doublethink too, mentioning the NRA and then trying to claim it's _somebody else_ that's in it for profit.
Click to expand...

I wish that were completely true, Pogo. Unfortunately, a lot of rationalization goes on between the two aisles of Congress, and there are people on both sides who want to limit guns to prevent American citizens from fending off greater guns owned by the government.

Take one very vocal Democrat from a liberal district, Mrs. Barbara Boxer. Granted, she is a good American and may represent constituents who re-elect her on a perpetual basis. But in the long run, Mrs. Boxer doesn't see death of the defenseless human beings as she sees the death of adult human beings who are defenseless against people toting weaponry that would stop an Abrams' tank, not to mention a person. She omitted in one of her speeches the horrors of the Gosnell killing of live infants by snipping their necks (which would render an adult being a quadriplegic for life), nor the 1,350,000 dead beings created by reported abortions in America annually. She did, however, campaign on gun control over 31,000 Americans getting shot by people who are armed. Much of this occurs in areas in which locals have banned guns for the people who obey their laws, who are sitting ducks for armed criminals. While that may be neither here or there, I can't ignore the math of okaying the killing of over a million Americans a year against 30,000 killings, many of which could be avoided if they were concerned an armed person would stop them by shooting back at them if they killed another person in the same all-night convenience store.

Nobody likes killing of any kind. But justifying over a million killings to support something like ten thousand real threats to a mother's life while taking away another civil right over arming oneself could lead to as many unwanted murders by criminals who disobey the law as abortion does, one of these days.

Theory does not match actuality in Ms. Boxer's corner. I'm sorry, it just doesn't the way I see it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is a little more dear than we know. Life is dear. Let's make sure we act in ways to protect it from predators seeking gain from ending another's life. Free adults should own guns to protect their family. Free adults should not procreate life only to extinguish it when they realize their fun will be penalized by having a child. They need to grow up and accept responsibility, not use an abortion clinic's need for more customers to escape reality that they have created--iow, a precious human life. We can deal with their mental problems. We can't deal with a precious child laying in its grave in a landfill somewhere.

Only good regards,

freedombecki


----------



## freedombecki

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
Click to expand...

Er, his "extrapolation" pounded your case, counselor.


----------



## kaz

freedombecki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Er, his "extrapolation" pounded your case, counselor.
Click to expand...


It is amusing, isn't it becki?  The liberals are arguing that removing guns will reduce gun violence, then when presented with Statistics contradicting that, they say there could be other "causal factors" and that the "rate of use of these firearms" is not always constant.

Well, so then why are they arguing that reducing guns will reduce gun crimes?  Maybe the constant causal factor is the criminal, not the weapon?  Would one not think?

Though in Pogo's case he won't clarify what he's actually arguing, he just argues against every argument presented, and not in a consistent way.  Which is why he won't clarify what he's actually arguing.  It would remove his ability to do that.


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> they don't have a gun culture.  Q.e.d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but they fought the same wars we fought.  So it can't be the wars that created the gun culture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were fought them where we live, not where they do.
Click to expand...


wwi,  wwii?


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they fought the same wars we fought.  So it can't be the wars that created the gun culture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were fought them where we live, not where they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wwi,  wwii?
Click to expand...


OK, valid point.

Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains.  I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground.  But European culture was already pretty established by then.

I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it.  Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns.  But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it.  They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics.  The collectivism is pathetic.  My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant.  When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography.  More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So firearms are is not the cause of death?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


I can't tell; there's no link.  All you said was "international homicide rates".  That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.


----------



## Pogo

freedombecki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are between 270-300 million guns in the USA. To put this in perspective, 4% of the worlds population owns 50% of all privately owned guns in the world. Some would think this would mean that the USA should have a homicide rate over 12x (50% divided by 4%) higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> In 2012 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compared intentional homicide rates for most countries in the world. USA's rate was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants while the worldwide average was 6.9. These figures mean you are 30% less likely to be murdered in the USA than elsewhere in the world.. The 4.8 homicide rate is not even close to 12 times higher than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant. When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography. More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Er, his "extrapolation" pounded your case, counselor.
Click to expand...


I would remind Her Honor that Geaux is the one making the case here, and if it please this honourable Court, counsel has failed to make that case.  Motion to Dismiss for lack of evidence...


----------



## Pogo

freedombecki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> if any one is to blame for the gun culture in america it is liberals. that's right liberals. liberal hollywood. movies and tv show portray gun violence in a positive light. Its good to be the bad boy. the liberal music industry. just listen to todays music. again, its good to be the bad boy. some one disrespects you, you blow them away. liberals run around claiming the NRA is at fault along with inbred hillbilly gun nuts. THe NRA promotes responsible gun ownership. the probelm with gun violence today clearly lies on the backs of liberals and the vehicles they use to promote it. for their own profit of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quite right about Hollyweird, television, and you didn't mention the gaming "industry". Music, well that more or less reflects what's already there; it's not a _visual _medium, which is a crucial distinction.
> 
> But none of those industries are even political, let alone "liberal". That's just simple capitalism, making money on the LCD. And what's in that LCD depends on the cultural values already there, and voilà, we're back to the gun fetishism.
> 
> Nice try at trying to make a cultural aspect into a political one, but it's a non-starter.
> 
> Nice try at Doublethink too, mentioning the NRA and then trying to claim it's _somebody else_ that's in it for profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish that were completely true, Pogo. Unfortunately, a lot of rationalization goes on between the two aisles of Congress, and there are people on both sides who want to limit guns to prevent American citizens from fending off greater guns owned by the government.
> 
> Take one very vocal Democrat from a liberal district, Mrs. Barbara Boxer. Granted, she is a good American and may represent constituents who re-elect her on a perpetual basis. But in the long run, Mrs. Boxer doesn't see death of the defenseless human beings as she sees the death of adult human beings who are defenseless against people toting weaponry that would stop an Abrams' tank, not to mention a person. She omitted in one of her speeches the horrors of the Gosnell killing of live infants by snipping their necks (which would render an adult being a quadriplegic for life), nor the 1,350,000 dead beings created by reported abortions in America annually. She did, however, campaign on gun control over 31,000 Americans getting shot by people who are armed. Much of this occurs in areas in which locals have banned guns for the people who obey their laws, who are sitting ducks for armed criminals. While that may be neither here or there, I can't ignore the math of okaying the killing of over a million Americans a year against 30,000 killings, many of which could be avoided if they were concerned an armed person would stop them by shooting back at them if they killed another person in the same all-night convenience store.
> 
> Nobody likes killing of any kind. But justifying over a million killings to support something like ten thousand real threats to a mother's life while taking away another civil right over arming oneself could lead to as many unwanted murders by criminals who disobey the law as abortion does, one of these days.
> 
> Theory does not match actuality in Ms. Boxer's corner. I'm sorry, it just doesn't the way I see it. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is a little more dear than we know. Life is dear. Let's make sure we act in ways to protect it from predators seeking gain from ending another's life. Free adults should own guns to protect their family. Free adults should not procreate life only to extinguish it when they realize their fun will be penalized by having a child. They need to grow up and accept responsibility, not use an abortion clinic's need for more customers to escape reality that they have created--iow, a precious human life. We can deal with their mental problems. We can't deal with a precious child laying in its grave in a landfill somewhere.
> 
> Only good regards,
> 
> freedombecki
Click to expand...





I'm trying to connect this post in some way with the post quoted.  I'm not seeing a connection.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> I would remind Her Honor that Geaux is the one making the case here, and if it please this honourable Court, counsel has failed to make that case.  Motion to Dismiss for lack of evidence...



That's true, you're the one running away from having a coherent point, you're just transactionally refuting...


----------



## Spoonman

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were fought them where we live, not where they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwi,  wwii?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, valid point.
> 
> Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains.  I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground.  But European culture was already pretty established by then.
> 
> I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it.  Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns.  But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it.  They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics.  The collectivism is pathetic.  My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.
Click to expand...


but protecting your lands is not going to a mall and shooting innocent people.  there are two differnet cultures we are talking about here.  the right ot portect yourself and using guns responsibly - true american heritage.   and the current one as glorified by hollywood and the music industry.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> wwi,  wwii?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, valid point.
> 
> Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains.  I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground.  But European culture was already pretty established by then.
> 
> I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it.  Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns.  But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it.  They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics.  The collectivism is pathetic.  My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but protecting your lands is not going to a mall and shooting innocent people.  there are two differnet cultures we are talking about here.  the right ot portect yourself and using guns responsibly - true american heritage.   and the current one as glorified by hollywood and the music industry.
Click to expand...


You keep going back to the music industry but I see (read: hear) that as a reflective (reactive) medium.  Again, since music is aural it can't _introduce visions_ into one's head like TV can, like movies can, like video games can and do.  Those, particularly TV, are propaganda vehicles that force the viewer to "sit down, shut up and ingest these graphics I'm about to download into your mind".  And of course those visions include mandatory gunplay and regular desensitization to its consequences.  Music really cannot do that.

Small detail maybe but I agree with your main point, although I submit these two different cultures are really two sides of the same one, in that whether your goal is committing crimes or just protecting your property, in both cases our cultural values assume the use of firearms as a matter of course.  And there's the rub.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> wwi,  wwii?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, valid point.
> 
> Though I still think that the way the US was settled by ranchers protecting their herds, farmers protecting their families and wars fought all around them has a more direct impact on developing a gun culture than major wars far more recently fought with tanks, ships and plains.  I realize there are exceptions, like the French underground.  But European culture was already pretty established by then.
> 
> I do like how you and I probably agree 90% of the time, but when there's any difference we jump on it.  Two things that some liberals will say they disagree with the leftist mantra on occasionally are border control and guns.  But they never, ever bring it up in any discussion on the topic or challenge another liberal on it.  They bring it up only in a discussion with a non-liberal to establish they aren't straight line leftists on other topics.  The collectivism is pathetic.  My brother and I have the best arguments, we agree probably 98% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but protecting your lands is not going to a mall and shooting innocent people.  there are two differnet cultures we are talking about here.  the right ot portect yourself and using guns responsibly - true american heritage.   and the current one as glorified by hollywood and the music industry.
Click to expand...


I agree that's part of the gun culture, but I think there are multiple segments.  There are hunters, people who want to defend themselves, sports enthusiasts, collectors (like me)...  And those groups overlap.  I think all of those, including your example of hollywood are legitimately part of our "gun culture."

They don't have any of those in Europe, their view of guns is completely different.  When I worked in Europe, that was a frequently asked (politely) dinner question.  Why does America have so many guns?  The other thing that always came up was the death penalty.

They did find my answer reasonable, I said it's part of our culture.  They asked why?  I pointed out how we expanded west with guns, hunted, fought the French (the English like that one), overthrew the English (the French like that one) and it's ingrained.  They don't totally get it, but they thought it made sense.  The death penalty they never got.  Though in fairness since I'm against it I probably wasn't the best to try to explain that one.


----------



## jon_berzerk

*Sanford Police Chief Walks Back &#8220;No Guns on Neighborhood Watch&#8221; Policy*

Posted by Andrew Branca	    Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at 8:44am

Readers may recall  &#8221;Citizens on Patrol&#8221; from early in the Zimmerman trial.  One of the first of the Prosecution&#8217;s witnesses was Wendy Dorival, a civilian employee of the Sanford PD who acted as their liaison with local neighborhood watch programs.  She testified about her interactions with George Zimmerman in that context, describing him in glowing terms.  Indeed, so impressed was she with Zimmerman that she tried to recruit him for the more substantive &#8220;Citizens on Patrol&#8221; program.  In that program Zimmerman would have been provided with a patrol car, a uniform of sorts, and generally been as close to being a &#8220;real&#8221; policeman as he had ever hoped to become.

Zimmerman declined the opportunity &#8212; one might speculate because even then the position would have required that Zimmerman disarm himself.  

So, if it was always the policy that &#8220;Citizens on Patrol&#8221; were required to be unarmed, but that the &#8220;standard&#8221; Neighborhood Watch volunteers could lawfully arm themselves, why the past few days news about these issues?

I expect that the only real &#8220;miscommunication&#8221; from the Sanford Police Department has been in misunderstanding how severely negative the response would be to the notion that Neighborhood Watch volunteers would be required to leave themselves fatally vulnerable to criminal aggressors preying on their neighborhood.

Sanford Neighborhood Watch | George Zimmerman | Guns


----------



## andrewbranca

jon_berzerk said:


> *Sanford Police Chief Walks Back No Guns on Neighborhood Watch Policy*
> 
> Posted by Andrew Branca	    Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at 8:44am



Thanks for the mention, Jon!  

--Andrew, [MENTION=45956]LawSelfDefense[/MENTION]


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your extrapolation does not follow (which you know since you couched it carefully in "some would think that..."), because it assumes that the rate of use of these firearms is always constant.  When you're talking about a fetish/status symbol, practical applications become secondary.
> 
> Moreover your second extrapolation (30% less likely) does not follow either, since it assumes no other causal factors can be involved, in spite of different social mores and geography.  More moreover, since you don't provide links and we're forced to accept your UN figures, "homicide" does not necessarily mean via firearm.
> 
> Sorry but this is just way too facile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So firearms are is not the cause of death?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't tell; there's no link.  All you said was "international homicide rates".  That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.
Click to expand...


Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> So firearms are is not the cause of death?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell; there's no link.  All you said was "international homicide rates".  That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Wtf part of this is not clear?? 

It matters because you cannot make a point about *guns *by citing *homicide *stats.  To do that you need *gun* stats.  Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell; there's no link.  All you said was "international homicide rates".  That doesn't necessarily mean by firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf part of this is not clear??
> 
> It matters because you cannot make a point about *guns *by citing *homicide *stats.  To do that you need *gun* stats.  Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.
Click to expand...


WTF do you not understand?

 What part of that guns do not cause high rates of homicide but other factors do?



-Geaux


----------



## rdean

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.

I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it matter what the delivery method is? So it's other factors, not a gun, that cause high rates of homicide?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf part of this is not clear??
> 
> It matters because you cannot make a point about *guns *by citing *homicide *stats.  To do that you need *gun* stats.  Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF do you not understand?
> 
> What part of that guns do not cause high rates of homicide but other factors do?
> 
> 
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


----------



## Geaux4it

Confusing liberals with facts | Washington Times Communities

Confusing liberals with facts

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2013 &#8212; It is not a good idea to confuse liberals with facts.
It is an excellent idea.

When you confront a rational person with the facts, the rational person will usually stop and consider their position in light of facts they did not know. 

While most liberals react with anger and shock that their pet beliefs are disproved, there are some who will listen. And those are the ones we should be trumpeting the latest shattered liberal myth to do so.
President Barack Obama spent $10 million of taxpayer dollars to have the Center for Disease Control to create a report that would help his war on the Second Amendment. Unfortunately for Obama, that one blew up in his face.

The CDC reported that armed victims had &#8220;consistently lower injury rates&#8221; than people who used other forms of self-defense. Presumably this includes the liberal&#8217;s favorite self-defense technique, the rape whistle. 
Another interesting components of the report was that almost two thirds of the deaths from the use of firearms were suicides. That&#8217;s right: They were not homicides.  They were suicides. 

The CDC report did a great job of shredding another liberal myth. Liberals love gun &#8220;turn in&#8221; programs. Every time a big city police department, led by liberal mayors and other liberal officials, does a gun buy back or turn in program, there is always a lot of media.

Guess what? The researchers from the CDC discovered those programs were &#8220;ineffective.&#8221; That result should come as a shock to no one who is capable of thinking and actually looks at the issue.
The left always wants to make war on the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense. These are the best and most effective rights we have as Americans. The left has an obsession with making America defenseless. They do it at the national level when they not only gut our defense but also have an almost pathological hatred for missile defense. At the personal level, they do not want Americans armed. They do not even want Americans to be able to have any capacity to defend themselves.

The left&#8217;s latest cause is the so-called &#8220;Stand your ground&#8221; laws. The liberals who attack &#8220;Stand your ground&#8221; laws are even more clueless than your typical liberal. There is no such thing as &#8220;stand your ground.&#8221;
American jurisprudence has always said there is a right to self-defense.  Some states have imposed a duty to retreat before using force. A majority of states do not require that.  

The left wants dependency. They want Americans dependent on welfare and the government for everything. Wanting Americans to be dependent on the government for their safety is nothing new. Perhaps liberals should be reminded that when seconds count, help from the government is at best, only minutes away.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Wtf part of this is not clear??
> 
> It matters because you cannot make a point about *guns *by citing *homicide *stats.  To do that you need *gun* stats.  Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.



I think the point he is trying to make is that the United States has 270,000,000* firearms * and 2.97 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
Then take for instance South Africa with a measly 5,950,000 *firearms *... and 17.03 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
The numbers are not even close ... And very telling.

*You can argue with it all you want  But that doesn't change anything.*

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf part of this is not clear??
> 
> It matters because you cannot make a point about *guns *by citing *homicide *stats.  To do that you need *gun* stats.  Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point he is trying to make is that the United States has 270,000,000* firearms *&#8230; and 2.97 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
> Then take for instance South Africa with a measly 5,950,000 *firearms *... and 17.03 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
> The numbers are not even close ... And very telling.
> 
> *You can argue with it all you want &#8230; But that doesn't change anything.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Argue what?   Nobody's making an argument, and that's not what he said.  He claimed (without a source) that X number of homicides happened in various places.  I pointed out that "homicides" are not necessarily "firearm homicides", so he hasn't yet made a point.

He was supposed to be looking up something... said he was... but you can't argue a point before one has been made.  

Btw the sourcing thing is kind of important since the same poster was busted a few weeks ago for running a bogus Vladimir Putin quote in his tagline...


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf part of this is not clear??
> 
> It matters because you cannot make a point about *guns *by citing *homicide *stats.  To do that you need *gun* stats.  Just as you cannot make a point about nutrition by citing potato stats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point he is trying to make is that the United States has 270,000,000* firearms *&#8230; and 2.97 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
> Then take for instance South Africa with a measly 5,950,000 *firearms *... and 17.03 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
> The numbers are not even close ... And very telling.
> 
> *You can argue with it all you want &#8230; But that doesn't change anything.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argue what?   Nobody's making an argument, and that's not what he said.  He claimed (without a source) that X number of homicides happened in various places.  I pointed out that "homicides" are not necessarily "firearm homicides", so he hasn't yet made a point.
> 
> He was supposed to be looking up something... said he was... but you can't argue a point before one has been made.
> 
> Btw the sourcing thing is kind of important since the same poster was busted a few weeks ago for running a bogus Vladimir Putin quote in his tagline...
Click to expand...


Listen, I will speak slower.... The point is, firearms are not the cause of high rates of homicides as you continue to point out. I agree with you here, lighten up.

As for Putin?






-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point he is trying to make is that the United States has 270,000,000* firearms * and 2.97 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
> Then take for instance South Africa with a measly 5,950,000 *firearms *... and 17.03 *firearm homicides *per 100,000 people.
> The numbers are not even close ... And very telling.
> 
> *You can argue with it all you want  But that doesn't change anything.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argue what?   Nobody's making an argument, and that's not what he said.  He claimed (without a source) that X number of homicides happened in various places.  I pointed out that "homicides" are not necessarily "firearm homicides", so he hasn't yet made a point.
> 
> He was supposed to be looking up something... said he was... but you can't argue a point before one has been made.
> 
> Btw the sourcing thing is kind of important since the same poster was busted a few weeks ago for running a bogus Vladimir Putin quote in his tagline...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, I will speak slower.... The point is, firearms are not the cause of high rates of homicides as you continue to point out. I agree with you here, lighten up.
> 
> As for Putin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


All I pointed out was that you established no point.  And now we see your source was apparently the same place you got your bogus Putin quote.

Thanks for playin', Vlad.


----------



## KevinWestern

You can take guns away from law abiding citizens, but you can never take them away from criminals or the government.

That's the problem with gun control.


----------



## jon_berzerk

LawSelfDefense said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sanford Police Chief Walks Back No Guns on Neighborhood Watch Policy*
> 
> Posted by Andrew Branca	    Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at 8:44am
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the mention, Jon!
> 
> --Andrew, [MENTION=45956]LawSelfDefense[/MENTION]
Click to expand...


Hey Welcome aboard ! 

Hope to see you adding your two cents from time to time


----------



## jon_berzerk

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.
Click to expand...


where do you come up with that crap


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Argue what?   Nobody's making an argument, and that's not what he said.  He claimed (without a source) that X number of homicides happened in various places.  I pointed out that "homicides" are not necessarily "firearm homicides", so he hasn't yet made a point.
> 
> He was supposed to be looking up something... said he was... but you can't argue a point before one has been made.
> 
> Btw the sourcing thing is kind of important since the same poster was busted a few weeks ago for running a bogus Vladimir Putin quote in his tagline...



*Oh ... I am sorry ... I didn't know you couldn't type, or navigate a website.*
Note that Geaux cited the 2012 UNODC rates and that the site has been updated to include 2013 ... It also includes both "International Homicide" rates as well as "Homicide by Firearm" rates.

UNODC homicide statistics

.


----------



## BlackSand

jon_berzerk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where do you come up with that crap
Click to expand...


*Uh ... Bobby Jindal cannot make the Louisiana State Constitution say one thing or another.*

The Citizens of the state of Louisiana ratified (with a 75% margin) the constitutional amendment making gun ownership in Louisiana a "Fundamental Right".

*It states ... *

_"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, ... 
is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."_ 

Albeit ... rdean's comment is incorrect since it doesn't specifically state that felons are allowed weapons.
There is a case before the Louisiana Supreme Court involving a felon and the newly ratified amendment ... But it hasn't been heard yet.

Louisiana Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional | NOLA.com

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argue what?   Nobody's making an argument, and that's not what he said.  He claimed (without a source) that X number of homicides happened in various places.  I pointed out that "homicides" are not necessarily "firearm homicides", so he hasn't yet made a point.
> 
> He was supposed to be looking up something... said he was... but you can't argue a point before one has been made.
> 
> Btw the sourcing thing is kind of important since the same poster was busted a few weeks ago for running a bogus Vladimir Putin quote in his tagline...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oh ... I am sorry ... I didn't know you couldn't type, or navigate a website.*
> Note that Geaux cited the 2012 UNODC rates and that the site has been updated to include 2013 ... It also includes both "International Homicide" rates as well as "Homicide by Firearm" rates.
> 
> UNODC homicide statistics
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*THERE WAS NO WEBSITE*, Dumbass.  He never came up with a link.  He just posted his own words -- and as already noted, he's posted bogus shit before.

Nice to know you can read websites that aren't there.  Save me some of those mushrooms.  

Some of you clowns go through unspeakable contortions to claim that yes the Emperor IS wearing clothes...


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> *THERE WAS NO WEBSITE*, Dumbass.  He never came up with a link.  He just posted his own words -- and as already noted, he's posted bogus shit before.
> 
> Nice to know you can read websites that aren't there.  Save me some of those mushrooms.



*He stated the source ... I just provided you with the link since you couldn't find it on your own.*

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THERE WAS NO WEBSITE*, Dumbass.  He never came up with a link.  He just posted his own words -- and as already noted, he's posted bogus shit before.
> 
> Nice to know you can read websites that aren't there.  Save me some of those mushrooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He stated the source ... I just provided you with the link since you couldn't find it on your own.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly how dim are you?  How is it *my job* to go do *his *homework for him, a known fabricator??

Holy shit it's dense in here...


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Exactly how dim are you?  How is it *my job* to go do *his *homework for him, a known fabricator??
> 
> Holy shit it's dense in here...



*He stated the source ... If you want to argue with it ... Do your own damn homework.*

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how dim are you?  How is it *my job* to go do *his *homework for him, a known fabricator??
> 
> Holy shit it's dense in here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *He stated the source ... If you want to argue with it ... Do your own damn homework.*
Click to expand...


I guess I have to explain this is real tiny words...

IT'S NOT *MY* HOMEWORK, DUMBASS.

HE made a point, or thought he did.  But he brought no basis to the table.  All I did was note that.  And he never fixed it.

The burden of proof is *his* -- not mine.  I don't even care about what his point is.  This is, like the most basic rule of word things.

THIS is what a link looks like:

Russell's Teapot

When I make a claim, *I* link it -- I don't wait for you to do it.  BECAUSE IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY.

Lord give me strength.....

"Run!  Martians are invading the earth!!"

"Oh yeah?  Where'd you hear that?

"Go look it up, do your own damn homework!"


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> I guess I have to explain this is real tiny words...
> 
> IT'S NOT *MY* HOMEWORK, DUMBASS.
> 
> HE made a point, or thought he did.  But he brought no basis to the table.  All I did was note that.  And he never fixed it.
> 
> The burden of proof is *his* -- not mine.  I don't even care about what his point is.  This is, like the most basic rule of word things.
> 
> THIS is what a link looks like:
> 
> Russell's Teapot
> 
> When I make a claim, *I* link it -- I don't wait for you to do it.  BECAUSE IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Lord give me strength.....
> 
> "Run!  Martians are invading the earth!!"
> 
> "Oh yeah?  Where'd you hear that?
> 
> "Go look it up, do your own damn homework!"



*Oh ... I get it ... You need to be spoon fed everything.*


----------



## Pogo

You really are this stupid?


----------



## rdean

BlackSand said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where do you come up with that crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Uh ... Bobby Jindal cannot make the Louisiana State Constitution say one thing or another.*
> 
> The Citizens of the state of Louisiana ratified (with a 75% margin) the constitutional amendment making gun ownership in Louisiana a "Fundamental Right".
> 
> *It states ... *
> 
> _"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, ...
> is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."_
> 
> Albeit ... rdean's comment is incorrect since it doesn't specifically state that felons are allowed weapons.
> There is a case before the Louisiana Supreme Court involving a felon and the newly ratified amendment ... But it hasn't been heard yet.
> 
> Louisiana Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional | NOLA.com
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Aww, you chased it away.

Actually, some of it is a matter of perspective and some is just cold, hard facts.

Since Jindal sponsored this state constitutional amendment and pushed it and politicized it, it belongs to him.  

It's the words "fundamental right" that makes all the difference.  Voting is not a "fundamental right" because if you are a felon, you can lose the right to vote.  A "fair" trial is a fundamental right and can't be denied to anyone, not even a murderer or a rapist.  And that is the "pickle" Bobby put himself in.  After a boner this big, he can never seriously run for president.

But the really disturbing thing is when you post these kinds of crazy ignorant right wing debacles, you get all these right wingers crying, "How do you come up with all this shit?"  How can they know so little about the party they support?  And they get really, really tired of being called "stupid".


----------



## jon_berzerk

BlackSand said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where do you come up with that crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Uh ... Bobby Jindal cannot make the Louisiana State Constitution say one thing or another.*
> 
> The Citizens of the state of Louisiana ratified (with a 75% margin) the constitutional amendment making gun ownership in Louisiana a "Fundamental Right".
> 
> *It states ... *
> 
> _"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, ...
> is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."_
> 
> Albeit ... rdean's comment is incorrect since it doesn't specifically state that felons are allowed weapons.
> There is a case before the Louisiana Supreme Court involving a felon and the newly ratified amendment ... But it hasn't been heard yet.
> 
> Louisiana Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional | NOLA.com
> 
> .
Click to expand...


it seems fair to view the removing of ones rights 

through a strict scrutiny test


----------



## Geaux4it

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *THERE WAS NO WEBSITE*, Dumbass.  He never came up with a link.  He just posted his own words -- and as already noted, he's posted bogus shit before.
> 
> Nice to know you can read websites that aren't there.  Save me some of those mushrooms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He stated the source ... I just provided you with the link since you couldn't find it on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly how dim are you?  How is it *my job* to go do *his *homework for him, a known fabricator??
> 
> Holy shit it's dense in here...
Click to expand...


The glass is half empty, not half full. If you do not agree with something educate yourself and seek the answers. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. 

Entitled much?

-Geaux


----------



## M14 Shooter

rdean said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you come up with that crap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh ... Bobby Jindal cannot make the Louisiana State Constitution say one thing or another.*
> 
> The Citizens of the state of Louisiana ratified (with a 75% margin) the constitutional amendment making gun ownership in Louisiana a "Fundamental Right".
> 
> *It states ... *
> 
> _"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, ...
> is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."_
> 
> Albeit ... rdean's comment is incorrect since it doesn't specifically state that felons are allowed weapons.
> There is a case before the Louisiana Supreme Court involving a felon and the newly ratified amendment ... But it hasn't been heard yet.
> 
> Louisiana Supreme Court to hear argument on whether law barring felons from guns is constitutional | NOLA.com
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww, you chased it away.
> 
> Actually, some of it is a matter of perspective and some is just cold, hard facts.
> 
> Since Jindal sponsored this state constitutional amendment and pushed it and politicized it, it belongs to him.
> 
> It's the words "fundamental right" that makes all the difference.  Voting is not a "fundamental right" because if you are a felon, you can lose the right to vote.  A "fair" trial is a fundamental right and can't be denied to anyone, not even a murderer or a rapist.  And that is the "pickle" Bobby put himself in.  After a boner this big, he can never seriously run for president.
> 
> But the really disturbing thing is when you post these kinds of crazy ignorant right wing debacles, you get all these right wingers crying, "How do you come up with all this shit?"  How can they know so little about the party they support?  And they get really, really tired of being called "stupid".
Click to expand...

Any and all rights may be removed through due process, including fundamental rights specifically protected by the, or any, constitution.
Thus, your ignorant position is ignorant.


----------



## BlackSand

rdean said:


> Aww, you chased it away.
> 
> Actually, some of it is a matter of perspective and some is just cold, hard facts.
> 
> Since Jindal sponsored this state constitutional amendment and pushed it and politicized it, it belongs to him.
> 
> It's the words "fundamental right" that makes all the difference.  Voting is not a "fundamental right" because if you are a felon, you can lose the right to vote.  A "fair" trial is a fundamental right and can't be denied to anyone, not even a murderer or a rapist.  And that is the "pickle" Bobby put himself in.  After a boner this big, he can never seriously run for president.
> 
> But the really disturbing thing is when you post these kinds of crazy ignorant right wing debacles, you get all these right wingers crying, "How do you come up with all this shit?"  How can they know so little about the party they support?  And they get really, really tired of being called "stupid".



Bobby Jindal is the Governor ... He didn't "sponsor" legislation or the amendment ... He supported it ... Like any Conservative and 75% of the People.
He isn't "in a pickle" because the amendment clearly states ... "under strict scrutiny" ... Which doesn't rule out the possibility of banning felons from firearm ownership.

*Typical Progressive Liberal garbage ... Add about a quarter cup of truth, a half cup of bullsh** ... And use a lot of icing based in conjecture or on what hasn't happened.*

.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> He stated the source ... I just provided you with the link since you couldn't find it on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how dim are you?  How is it *my job* to go do *his *homework for him, a known fabricator??
> 
> Holy shit it's dense in here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The glass is half empty, not half full. If you do not agree with something educate yourself and seek the answers. Don't expect someone else to do it for you.
> 
> Entitled much?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


It's not possible to "agree" or "disagree" when you haven't made a fucking point in the first place because YOU can't be bothered to find a source, dick head.  And it sure as FUCK isn't my job to go look up your points for you.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.
Click to expand...


Fly by liberalism.   

1)  There is nothing in the legislation that said that criminals can get guns, that was a judge.  You know, the people that YOU think are dictators.  When liberal solutions turn on yourselves, you still aren't responsible...

2)  And your statement is highly misleading.  Even the ... judge ... who ruled that did not extend it to anyone who committed a violent crime with a gun.  So once again, you are wrong.  You must be used to that, it's rarely otherwise.


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bobby Jindal made gun ownership a fundamental right via constitution right in his own state.  That means felons and rapists and bank robbers can't be denied guns.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Democrats won't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where do you come up with that crap
Click to expand...


He reads the headlines in the liberal media.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how dim are you?  How is it *my job* to go do *his *homework for him, a known fabricator??
> 
> Holy shit it's dense in here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The glass is half empty, not half full. If you do not agree with something educate yourself and seek the answers. Don't expect someone else to do it for you.
> 
> Entitled much?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not possible to "agree" or "disagree" when you haven't made a fucking point in the first place because YOU can't be bothered to find a source, dick head.  And it sure as FUCK isn't my job to go look up your points for you.
Click to expand...




Do as I say, not as I do, eh pogo?


----------



## Geaux4it

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The glass is half empty, not half full. If you do not agree with something educate yourself and seek the answers. Don't expect someone else to do it for you.
> 
> Entitled much?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not possible to "agree" or "disagree" when you haven't made a fucking point in the first place because YOU can't be bothered to find a source, dick head.  And it sure as FUCK isn't my job to go look up your points for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do as I say, not as I do, eh pogo?
Click to expand...


LMAO. Slurpo aka Pogo is such a neg troll he probably negs himself

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

Attempted Repeal Of FL &#8216;Stand Your Ground&#8217; Law Fails Miserably &#8211; Committee Vote 11-2 In Favor of Rejecting Repeal

House Video Player: Criminal Justice Subcommittee


----------



## yeo

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides American citizens with the right to bear arms.  The only legal option open to those opposed to this right *should* be an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment.  Even this option is debatable, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are presumed to be immune to repeal.  Yet, we have individual states, such as New York, placing bans on guns, and we have a president and Congressmen and Congresswomen shouting for the banning or limiting of guns to citizens for whom they presumably work.  Do we still have a Constitution, or do we have elected representatives that choose to ignore it?
Vic Debs,


----------



## M14 Shooter

yeo said:


> The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides American citizens with the right to bear arms.  The only legal option open to those opposed to this right *should* be an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment.  Even this option is debatable, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are presumed to be immune to repeal.  Yet, we have individual states, such as New York, placing bans on guns, and we have a president and Congressmen and Congresswomen shouting for the banning or limiting of guns to citizens for whom they presumably work.  Do we still have a Constitution, or do we have elected representatives that choose to ignore it?
> Vic Debs,


It surprises you that the liberal anti-gun agenda, designed to make Americans more helpless and thus more dependent on government, takes priority over the constitution of the Constutution?


----------



## Pogo

M14 Shooter said:


> yeo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides American citizens with the right to bear arms.  The only legal option open to those opposed to this right *should* be an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment.  Even this option is debatable, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are presumed to be immune to repeal.  Yet, we have individual states, such as New York, placing bans on guns, and we have a president and Congressmen and Congresswomen shouting for the banning or limiting of guns to citizens for whom they presumably work.  Do we still have a Constitution, or do we have elected representatives that choose to ignore it?
> Vic Debs,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It surprises you that the liberal anti-gun agenda, designed to make americans more helpless and thus more dependent on government, takes priority over the constitution of the Constutution?
Click to expand...


That would be a _leftist _agenda; not a liberal one.  Just sayin'.


----------



## jon_berzerk

yeo said:


> The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides American citizens with the right to bear arms.  The only legal option open to those opposed to this right *should* be an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Second Amendment.  Even this option is debatable, as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are presumed to be immune to repeal.  Yet, we have individual states, such as New York, placing bans on guns, and we have a president and Congressmen and Congresswomen shouting for the banning or limiting of guns to citizens for whom they presumably work.  Do we still have a Constitution, or do we have elected representatives that choose to ignore it?
> Vic Debs,



*Yet, we have individual states, such as New York, placing bans on guns*,

we also have opposite as true 

states like South Dakota 

Montana and others 

that have expanded the right 

and written laws trumping the feds 

out here in South Dakota 

you can build a firearm with a bore of up to 1&1/2 inches or accessories  (including silencers) 

outside of the federal rules as long as it is built in the state remains in the state 

and is marked as a South Dakota firearm


----------



## yeo

The Supreme Court decides whether or not state laws exceed their authority, and it uses the Constitution as the basis for their decisions.  Of course, with modern Justices "interpreting" the Constitution rather than accepting what is written verbatim, we often see some strange decisions handed down by the "nine old men (and women)"


----------



## OODA_Loop

Execute violent gun criminals after due process.


----------



## yeo

Liberal may be used as an adjective.  _Liberal_ agenda works, since liberal and leftist are synonyms.


----------



## Pogo

yeo said:


> Liberal may be used as an adjective.  _Liberal_ agenda works, since liberal and leftist are synonyms.



Well - no, they're not.  A frequent conflation, driven by demonizers of the right.

Basically _liberal _means "let it be" while left (or right) means "force it".  That's three different things.


----------



## M14 Shooter

yeo said:


> Liberal may be used as an adjective.  _Liberal_ agenda works, since liberal and leftist are synonyms.


Yes.   The Modern Americam Liberal is a leftist; the terms are synonyms.


----------



## Pogo

M14 Shooter said:


> yeo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal may be used as an adjective.  _Liberal_ agenda works, since liberal and leftist are synonyms.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   The Modern Americam Liberal is a leftist; the terms are synonyms.
Click to expand...


Perhaps for those who live in fables but I think your expertise is guns.

Better stick to that.


----------



## jon_berzerk

OODA_Loop said:


> Execute violent gun criminals after due process.



what about other violent criminals


----------



## yeo

_Well - no, they're not. A frequent conflation, driven by demonizers of the right.

Basically liberal means "let it be" while left (or right) means "force it". That's three different things._

If you look up the words in the Webster dictionary, you will find that, in terms of their political definition, _liberal_ and _leftist_ are synonymous, and both can be used interchangeably as a noun or as a verb.


----------



## M14 Shooter

yeo said:


> _Well - no, they're not. A frequent conflation, driven by demonizers of the right.
> 
> Basically liberal means "let it be" while left (or right) means "force it". That's three different things._
> 
> If you look up the words in the Webster dictionary, you will find that, in terms of their political definition, _liberal_ and _leftist_ are synonymous, and both can be used interchangeably as a noun or as a verb.


Liberals do all kinds of silly things to convince themseles they aren't leftists.


----------



## Geaux4it

My plan to keep guns from them is to shoot them before they shoot me.

Good plan

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

yeo said:


> _Well - no, they're not. A frequent conflation, driven by demonizers of the right.
> 
> Basically liberal means "let it be" while left (or right) means "force it". That's three different things._
> 
> If you look up the words in the Webster dictionary, you will find that, in terms of their political definition, _liberal_ and _leftist_ are synonymous, and both can be used interchangeably as a noun or as a verb.



Webster isn't a political science book but the first link I get says:
lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
*d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. *

-- which in turn gives:
lib·er·al·ism  (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.  -- Free Dic


Like it or not, they're not the same thing at all.  Liberalism is what founded this country and gave us the Second Amendment, so be careful what you demonize.

Redefining the Political Spectrum

Here's a quick Cliff's Notes:
Declaring "all men are created equal" is Liberalism.  Trying to force it with affirmative action is leftism.


----------



## Spoonman

as long as liberal laws prevent people from protecting themselves gun violence will always be an issue.  criminals know they have the edge

Gonzaga Students Hit With Probation for Pulling Gun on Intruder | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo

..Gonzaga Students Hit With Probation for Pulling Gun on Intruder
..By ABC News
..Posts..By ABC News | ABC News Blogs &#8211; 2 hours 43 minutes ago
....Email0Share149
Share0Print.....
.....
ABC News' Mosheh Gains and Sandra Petrykowski report:

Two Gonzaga University students are on indefinite probation for pulling out a gun when an intruder allegedly tried to force his way into their university-owned apartment.

Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were notified Sunday in a letter from the Spokane, Wash., university they had been placed on indefinite probation for violating the school's weapons policy Oct. 24 when a six-time felon knocked on their door and allegedly demanded money.

Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.


----------



## Geaux4it

I still say the way out of this is to kill all those thugs we can who want to use guns to kill or rob other people.

Survival of the fittest

-Geaux


----------



## 71sportstourer

When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson. 

No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.


----------



## yeo

_Webster isn't a political science book but the first link I get says:
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. _

Political terms, such as _liberal_,  have been used for years, decades and centuries, but their definitions have acquired new meaning over the course of time.  The main modern source for defining words in the English language, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, offers _as its first definition_ of liberal, "believing that government should be _active in supporting social and political change"_ (I noticed you failed to include that most important definition.)  It also gives _leftist_ and _liberal_ as synonyms.  You will find most modern political sources give a similar *political* meaning to liberal or liberalism.  I wonder if you believe firmly enough in your political positions, since you seem uncomfortable with the title_ liberal_ and all the government- involvement dogma attached to it.  I, for one, am not ashamed to label myself a political conservative, and am comfortable with the ideas of individual freedom and restrictions on government attached to it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Spoonman said:


> as long as liberal laws prevent people from protecting themselves gun violence will always be an issue.  criminals know they have the edge
> 
> Gonzaga Students Hit With Probation for Pulling Gun on Intruder | ABC News Blogs - Yahoo
> 
> ..Gonzaga Students Hit With Probation for Pulling Gun on Intruder
> ..By ABC News
> ..Posts..By ABC News | ABC News Blogs  2 hours 43 minutes ago
> ....Email0Share149
> Share0Print.....
> .....
> ABC News' Mosheh Gains and Sandra Petrykowski report:
> 
> Two Gonzaga University students are on indefinite probation for pulling out a gun when an intruder allegedly tried to force his way into their university-owned apartment.
> 
> Erik Fagan and Dan McIntosh were notified Sunday in a letter from the Spokane, Wash., university they had been placed on indefinite probation for violating the school's weapons policy Oct. 24 when a six-time felon knocked on their door and allegedly demanded money.
> 
> Fagan said he answered the door to their apartment when he confronted John Taylor, a repeat offender who told him he'd just gotten out of jail.


Clearly, the university, and all those who support its policy, would rather have seen these guys defenseless - and therefore dependent on the state for their safety.

The state, see, should have a monopoly on force.


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened.


The decrease in injures/deatfh from drunk driving did not happen unitil states increased their punishment of those who drive drunk.  
The lesson: if you want to curtail criminal behavior, effectively punish those that break the law,



> When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.


When anti-gun loons talk about guns and gun control, their arguments eminate from their asses.


----------



## Geaux4it

The beauty of the Second Amendment is, it will not be needed until they try to take it away.

Guess who?

-Geaux


----------



## Spoonman

71sportstourer said:


> When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.



drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.


----------



## Pogo

yeo said:


> _Webster isn't a political science book but the first link I get says:
> lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
> adj.
> 1.
> a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
> b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
> c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
> d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. _
> 
> Political terms, such as _liberal_,  have been used for years, decades and centuries, but their definitions have acquired new meaning over the course of time.  The main modern source for defining words in the English language, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, offers _as its first definition_ of liberal, "believing that government should be _active in supporting social and political change"_ (I noticed you failed to include that most important definition.)  It also gives _leftist_ and _liberal_ as synonyms.  You will find most modern political sources give a similar *political* meaning to liberal or liberalism.  I wonder if you believe firmly enough in your political positions, since you seem uncomfortable with the title_ liberal_ and all the government- involvement dogma attached to it.  I, for one, am not ashamed to label myself a political conservative, and am comfortable with the ideas of individual freedom and restrictions on government attached to it.



Once again -- M-W is a dictionary, not a political science resource. My citation was from FreeDic and I omitted *nothing *pertinent to politics (I linked it; go look for yourself).  It would appear your Merriam  Webster is wrong (I'm taking your word that that's what it says) because _liberal _and _leftist_ are in no way synonymous. What would be the point of that?  _Liberal_ and "government involvement" are in fact antithetical.  Liberalism is _opposed _by both the left and the right.

I did leave you a link that explained all this.  You might try reading it.  Matter of fact I'd say it would behoove you to spend more time listening/reading and less time spewing before you know what you're talking about.

And no I'm not at all "uncomfortable"; Liberalism is what founded this country _and_ wrote the Second Amendment, Bub.  But I will correct you when you try to distort what it is.

Edit: I really didn't want to waste the time but I checked Merriam Webster anyway, and it does not say what you claimed -- to wit:

>> Full Definition of LIBERALISM

1
:  the quality or state of being liberal
2
a often capitalized :  a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b :  a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c :  a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically :  such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized :  the principles and policies of a Liberal party << (link here)

Not a great definition, particularly the "crucial instrument" part, but also not what you quoted.  It does however list _left_, _leftism _and _left wing_ as synonyms, which is erroneous.

For what it's worth historically, this attempt at demonizing the word _liberal _comes from the dark McCarthy days; it was a desperation tactic when Democrats were in power to paint them as communists or communist sympathizers and polarize political discourse into a juvenile "good" and "evil" dichotomy.  George Bush the First revived it in the 1988 Presidential campaign too.  But I'll be damned if I'm going to start misusing a definition I know better just because Joe McCarthy and Rush Limblob want to score cheap political sport-points.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> 71sportstourer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.
Click to expand...


Where do you get _either _of those ideas?


----------



## kaz

71sportstourer said:


> When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.



In what possible way are drunk driving and lung cancer like guns?

Guns can be used for good or bad, and the bad is a tiny fraction of 1%.

1)  When are drunk driving or lung cancer good?

2)  When do you use drunk driving to protect yourself from drunk drivers or lung cancer to protect yourself from lung cancer?

3)  When do you use drunk driving for sports, hunting or collect them?

This is just a completely bogus argument.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Webster isn't a political science book but the first link I get says:
> lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
> adj.
> 1.
> a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
> b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
> c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
> *d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. *
> 
> -- which in turn gives:
> lib·er·al·ism  (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
> n.
> 1. The state or quality of being liberal.
> 2.
> a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.  -- Free Dic



Today the people who call themselves that are none of those things.  They are authoritarians wallowing in bigotry and hatred.  Calling a modern leftist a "liberal" is like calling Obamacare "affordable."



Pogo said:


> Liberalism is what founded this country and gave us the Second Amendment, so be careful what you demonize.



Yes, but that's a redefinition game.  True liberals today are called "libertarians."  And the founding father's ideology was extremely libertarian.  Government, particularly the central government, limited to enumerated powers, and those powers are the functions which can only be performed by the central government.

There is no overlap at all between a 1700's "liberal" and a 1900/2000's liberal.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> The state, see, should have a monopoly on force.



Ding, ding, ding.  Modern leftists are authoritarian.  Of course they want only government to have legitimate force.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal may be used as an adjective.  _Liberal_ agenda works, since liberal and leftist are synonyms.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   The Modern Americam Liberal is a leftist; the terms are synonyms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps for those who live in fables but I think your expertise is guns.
> 
> Better stick to that.
Click to expand...


Give an example in contemporary America of a liberal who is not a leftist and a leftist who is not a liberal to enlighten us.


----------



## BlackSand

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   The Modern Americam Liberal is a leftist; the terms are synonyms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps for those who live in fables but I think your expertise is guns.
> 
> Better stick to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give an example in contemporary America of a liberal who is not a leftist and a leftist who is not a liberal to enlighten us.
Click to expand...


*I am a firm believer in the fact that identifying the similarities in a liberal and leftist will eventually lead us to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.*
I am not equally certain that the left will be too happy about it though.

.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> 71sportstourer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.
Click to expand...


I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.


----------



## BlackSand

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 71sportstourer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened. When lung cancer was rampant, cigarette machines disappeared and smoking in public curtailed. When gun violence is rampant, conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> No wonder they've won the pop vote for the white house once in two decades. Good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.
Click to expand...


When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
When Lung Cancer was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional bans of activities regarding private properties accessed by the public ... And levied a tax on a publically distributed product as a strictly punitive measure.
When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.

Edit:
Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.

.


----------



## yeo

_Once again -- M-W is a dictionary, not a political science resource. My citation was from FreeDic and I omitted nothing pertinent to politics (I linked it; go look for yourself). It would appear your Merriam Webster is wrong (I'm taking your word that that's what it says) because liberal and leftist are in no way synonymous. What would be the point of that? Liberal and "government involvement" are in fact antithetical. Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.

I did leave you a link that explained all this. You might try reading it. Matter of fact I'd say it would behoove you to spend more time listening/reading and less time spewing before you know what you're talking about.

And no I'm not at all "uncomfortable"; Liberalism is what founded this country and wrote the Second Amendment, Bub. But I will correct you when you try to distort what it is.

Edit: I really didn't want to waste the time but I checked Merriam Webster anyway, and it does not say what you claimed -- to wit:

>> Full Definition of LIBERALISM

1
: the quality or state of being liberal
2
a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party << (link here)

Not a great definition, particularly the "crucial instrument" part, but also not what you quoted. It does however list left, leftism and left wing as synonyms, which is erroneous.

For what it's worth historically, this attempt at demonizing the word liberal comes from the dark McCarthy days; it was a desperation tactic when Democrats were in power to paint them as communists or communist sympathizers and polarize political discourse into a juvenile "good" and "evil" dichotomy. George Bush the First revived it in the 1988 Presidential campaign too. But I'll be damned if I'm going to start misusing a definition I know better just because Joe McCarthy and Rush Limblob want to score cheap political sport-points._

So much of what you have written is illogical that I do not know where to begin.  Let's begin by your refuting my source as merely a dictionary, then offering as your only source, FreeDic, which, of course, is a dictionary.  Second, if you go to the Merriam-Webster website, as I'm sure other readers have done by now, liberal is first defined, right below the term liberal, ": believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change."  Your claiming it is not there does not make it disappear.  You should state, instead, that you wish it was not there since it shatters your archaic   concept of the meaning of modern American liberalism.  Secondly, everything else you wrote is based on opinion, with no facts offered.  Here's a couple from Wikipedia, perhaps not the best source for political science but the website's quotes are accurate.  Such as from the self-professed liberal Paul Krugman, "I believe in a relatively _equal _society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty.:  And another from JFK, who defines liberal as, "..._someone who cares about the welfare of the people _ their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs..."  _Equality _and _welfare of the people_...that about sums up the liberal philosophy.
The current liberals are the "demonizers, quick to label Tea Party activists, the NRA and conservatives as right-wing fanatics and obstructionists, while they push their socialist agenda in a Congress overcrowded with knee-wobbly Republicans.
I would appreciate, if and when you respond, your citing some sources to back up your claims, rather than expecting others to go along blindly with everything you write.
One more thing, lose the hostility.  When you show anger, you help the argument of your opponent.
__________________


----------



## M14 Shooter

> >> Full Definition of LIBERALISM1
> 2
> a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity


Well, we know this  does not apply to tghe Modern American Liberal



> b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard


Nor does this.



> c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties;


Nor this.

And thus, the Modern Americal Liberal is NOT a classical liberal.
Those of us with any degree of intellectual honesty already knew this.


----------



## kaz

BlackSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
> When Lung Cancer was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional bans of activities regarding private properties accessed by the public ... And levied a tax on a publically distributed product as a strictly punitive measure.
> When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.
> 
> Edit:
> Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Good points, though I don't think that's what the spoon man meant.  He's a good guy, I just didn't get what he was getting at with that particular argument.


----------



## Pogo

yeo said:


> _Once again -- M-W is a dictionary, not a political science resource. My citation was from FreeDic and I omitted nothing pertinent to politics (I linked it; go look for yourself). It would appear your Merriam Webster is wrong (I'm taking your word that that's what it says) because liberal and leftist are in no way synonymous. What would be the point of that? Liberal and "government involvement" are in fact antithetical. Liberalism is opposed by both the left and the right.
> 
> I did leave you a link that explained all this. You might try reading it. Matter of fact I'd say it would behoove you to spend more time listening/reading and less time spewing before you know what you're talking about.
> 
> And no I'm not at all "uncomfortable"; Liberalism is what founded this country and wrote the Second Amendment, Bub. But I will correct you when you try to distort what it is.
> 
> Edit: I really didn't want to waste the time but I checked Merriam Webster anyway, and it does not say what you claimed -- to wit:
> 
> >> Full Definition of LIBERALISM
> 
> 1
> : the quality or state of being liberal
> 2
> a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
> b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
> c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)
> d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party << (link here)
> 
> Not a great definition, particularly the "crucial instrument" part, but also not what you quoted. It does however list left, leftism and left wing as synonyms, which is erroneous.
> 
> For what it's worth historically, this attempt at demonizing the word liberal comes from the dark McCarthy days; it was a desperation tactic when Democrats were in power to paint them as communists or communist sympathizers and polarize political discourse into a juvenile "good" and "evil" dichotomy. George Bush the First revived it in the 1988 Presidential campaign too. But I'll be damned if I'm going to start misusing a definition I know better just because Joe McCarthy and Rush Limblob want to score cheap political sport-points._
> 
> So much of what you have written is illogical that I do not know where to begin.  Let's begin by your refuting my source as merely a dictionary, then offering as your only source, FreeDic, which, of course, is a dictionary.  Second, if you go to the Merriam-Webster website, as I'm sure other readers have done by now, liberal is first defined, right below the term liberal, ": believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change."  Your claiming it is not there does not make it disappear.  You should state, instead, that you wish it was not there since it shatters your archaic   concept of the meaning of modern American liberalism.  Secondly, everything else you wrote is based on opinion, with no facts offered.  Here's a couple from Wikipedia, perhaps not the best source for political science but the website's quotes are accurate.  Such as from the self-professed liberal Paul Krugman, "I believe in a relatively _equal _society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty.:  And another from JFK, who defines liberal as, "..._someone who cares about the welfare of the people _&#8212; their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs..."  _Equality _and _welfare of the people_...that about sums up the liberal philosophy.
> The current liberals are the "demonizers, quick to label Tea Party activists, the NRA and conservatives as right-wing fanatics and obstructionists, while they push their socialist agenda in a Congress overcrowded with knee-wobbly Republicans.
> I would appreciate, if and when you respond, your citing some sources to back up your claims, rather than expecting others to go along blindly with everything you write.
> One more thing, lose the hostility.  When you show anger, you help the argument of your opponent.
> __________________




Look, dood.  If you just want to hear the sound of your own voice, you're in the wrong place.  This is a message board, the purpose of which is dialogue, not monologue.

All the links are there.  The M-W page (see where it says "link here"?  that's why it's there -- what you quoted simply _doesn't appear on that page_).  I pasted what WAS on the page within my post, so I don't know what page you were looking at.  I also linked a 30-page background political science history on all of this previously; I also linked my own FreeDic citation before that.  ALL of them are linked.  If you're not interested in any view but your own, seeya later, but don't sit there and tell me the links sitting on the page aren't there.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> drunk driving is not down, cigarette smoking is on the rise again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
Click to expand...


They did, that's true, and it's a major blot on the face of liberty.  But two things: (a) I don't think those road searches were inspired by drunk driving, and (b) I don't think that's what the poster meant; he said "When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened".  Meaning the BAL.  That's hardly the same thing as a Gestapo roadblock.



BlackSand said:


> When Lung Cancer was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional bans of activities regarding private properties accessed by the public ... And levied a tax on a publically distributed product as a strictly punitive measure.



Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only.  It fucks up the entire room.  My mother died of lung cancer.  She wasn't a smoker.  I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother.  Do you?

As for the "punitive" tax...   Fuck 'em.  If they're going to self-destruct in a completely selfish act, let's get _something _productive out of 'em. 



BlackSand said:


> When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.



This point would appear not to apply after the first two points... 

The poster's actual line "conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson" as I read it draws a distinction between, on the one hand the social mores being modified by popular consent to address social problems in the case of drunk driving and smoking (both of which kill bystanders) and on the other hand, gun violence.  I'm not sure what Jefferson talk he's referring to, but his point is whereas we took on drunk driving and public smoking, conservatives go silent on this one.  In effect he's turning the OP around and asking "conservatives, what is _your _plan?".  That's my take.



BlackSand said:


> Edit:
> Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.
> 
> .



Jefferson drove drunk?  You're perhaps thinking of Franklin Pierce.
And where's your background on his smoking?


----------



## 71sportstourer

Conservatives logic when it comes to guns: abolish traffic laws because automobile accidents are still happening.


----------



## 71sportstourer

The fact is the NRA and gun nuts argument is that gun control and ample gun rights can't co-exist in the same time and place. 

I might buy that if Canada, which has huge numbers of armed sportsmen (a very high per capita firearms ownership ratio) at the same time didn't also have, compared to the paltry background check expansions Dems have proposed, extremely tight gun control. 

So, on this issue the right is clearly lying, extreme, etc.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't heard either of those, but either way I'm not sure what your point is in regard to guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did, that's true, and it's a major blot on the face of liberty.  But two things: (a) I don't think those road searches were inspired by drunk driving, and (b) I don't think that's what the poster meant; he said "When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened".  Meaning the BAL.  That's hardly the same thing as a Gestapo roadblock.
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only.  It fucks up the entire room.  My mother died of lung cancer.  She wasn't a smoker.  I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother.  Do you?
> 
> As for the "punitive" tax...   Fuck 'em.  If they're going to self-destruct in a completely selfish act, let's get _something _productive out of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> When gun violence is rampant ... Conservatives finally said ... We saw what you did the last two times, and no way in hell are you getting away with it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This point would appear not to apply after the first two points...
> 
> The poster's actual line "conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson" as I read it draws a distinction between, on the one hand the social mores being modified by popular consent to address social problems in the case of drunk driving and smoking (both of which kill bystanders) and on the other hand, gun violence.  I'm not sure what Jefferson talk he's referring to, but his point is whereas we took on drunk driving and public smoking, conservatives go silent on this one.  In effect he's turning the OP around and asking "conservatives, what is _your _plan?".  That's my take.
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson drove drunk?  You're perhaps thinking of Franklin Pierce.
> And where's your background on his smoking?
Click to expand...


That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.
Of course don't get the idea that I ever thought you would understand ... I mean you made a comment and Thomas Jefferson and driving drunk ... When it is obvious he didn't give a damn because there weren't any cars.

*You would do better sitting in front of a mirror and arguing with yourself.*

.


----------



## 71sportstourer

[/QUOTE] That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.[/QUOTE]

Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."



*Yeah, I know ... It bugs the hell out of you doesn't it?*
When you read what they said about why it was put there ... That probably pisses you off a little too.

.


----------



## 71sportstourer

Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.



*If you are happy with being the loser ... That's fine with me.*

.


----------



## 71sportstourer

You equate losing the pop vote all but once in the past two decades with winning, okay.


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> You equate losing the pop vote all but once in the past two decades with winning, okay.



*Uh no ... I don't equate anything off the popular vote ... I was referring to exactly what you said.*

.


----------



## 71sportstourer

Win the White House a few times, then talk about winning.


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> Win the White House a few times, then talk about winning.



*I didn't say anything about winning ... You talked about losing ... I just agreed with you.*

.


----------



## Spoonman

That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.[/QUOTE]

Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."[/QUOTE]

then again if you ever bothered to read what madison described a well regulated militia to be you see it even give more credence to the fact his intent was that citizens be as well armed as the government.


----------



## Spoonman

71sportstourer said:


> Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.



you do know you gun grabbing idiots couldn't even exploit the deaths of school kids to pass legislation you claimed 90% of americans favored.  you've already lost


----------



## 71sportstourer

[/QUOTE] then again if you ever bothered to read what madison described a well regulated militia to be you see it even give more credence to the fact his intent was that citizens be as well armed as the government.[/QUOTE]

Spoonman, another representative of the right who can't post a text without calling someone an idiot? Does rudeness make you popular with the ladies?

I've read what Madison wrote. There's nothing in it about citizens carrying handguns in public for personal protection, for one. Nor is there anything in the second amendment that says it.


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> I've read what Madison wrote. There's nothing in it about citizens carrying handguns in public for personal protection, for one. Nor is there anything in the second amendment that says it.



*That's because the right to carry a handgun in public for personal protection is covered by states laws ... And isn't in the 2nd Amendment.*

.


----------



## Ernie S.

71sportstourer said:


> Conservatives logic when it comes to guns: abolish traffic laws because automobile accidents are still happening.



Liberal logic when it comes to gun: We can keep criminals from killing innocent people by disarming innocent people.


----------



## Ernie S.

71sportstourer said:


> The fact is the NRA and gun nuts argument is that gun control and ample gun rights can't co-exist in the same time and place.
> 
> I might buy that if Canada, which has huge numbers of armed sportsmen (a very high per capita firearms ownership ratio) at the same time didn't also have, compared to the paltry background check expansions Dems have proposed, extremely tight gun control.
> 
> So, on this issue the right is clearly lying, extreme, etc.



Does Canada have the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only.  It fucks up the entire room.  My mother died of lung cancer.  She wasn't a smoker.  I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother.  Do you?



Who was this random smoker? You do realize there are other causes of lung cancer besides smoking. Beryllium for example. Was she ever exposed to beryllium?
One speck of it in your lung and you WILL get lung cancer.


----------



## Ernie S.

71sportstourer said:


> spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then again if you ever bothered to read what madison described a well regulated militia to be you see it even give more credence to the fact his intent was that citizens be as well armed as the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman, another representative of the right who can't post a text without calling someone an idiot? Does rudeness make you popular with the ladies?
> 
> I've read what Madison wrote. There's nothing in it about citizens carrying handguns in public for personal protection, for one. Nor is there anything in the second amendment that says it.
Click to expand...


Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment? It says the right of the People to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed*.
Forbidding a law abiding citizen to carry a weapon, handgun, stotgun, rifle, scary looking pseudo-military styled semi-automatic carbine or whatever *SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.*

If you like, I will provide a link to a definition of "infringed".


----------



## 71sportstourer

Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words. 

But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.
> 
> But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.



*Are you trying to say that you making up crap that isn't written based on your nefarious intentions and personal desire ... Is somehow superior to a proper understanding of what is written and plain enough to read?*
I mean you are the only one trying to change the intent of things around here ... Everyone else understands.

.


----------



## 71sportstourer

Nice to know that you speak for everyone around here, and in all caps, Blacksand. You seem to believe that shouting makes you right. And you never answered the questions about whether being rude and insulting makes you popular with the ladies.


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> Conservatives logic when it comes to guns: abolish traffic laws because automobile accidents are still happening.


Thank you for supporting the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emoton, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work.


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> The fact is the NRA and gun nuts argument is that gun control and ample gun rights can't co-exist in the same time and place.


Tell me:  are you lying, or are you really -that- ignorant?


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> Quoting the first half of the second amendment, as the right does incessantly, is "not the freaking Constitution."


This made me laugh so hard, I blew Pepsi all ovr my monitor.


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> Doesn't bug me in the least. Because, in the long run, they'll lose, as liars and zealots do, and I'm happy not to be one of them.


As they. like you, can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, the only liars and zealots here are the anti-gun loons.


----------



## OODA_Loop

71sportstourer said:


> Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.
> 
> But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.



_Heller v. DC _affirms 2A right as individual free from militia service.

_McDonald v. Chicago_  incorporated _Heller_ to the States.

My State constitution affirms the right to possess and carry.

Check and Mate.


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.


Fact:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Now, you can hate that fact all you want, but topretend that it is not a fact only means you're lying to yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

71sportstourer said:


> Like others of your ilk, you like to break it down to a few words, if not a single word, which in the writing business is called quoting out of context, or changing the intent if not meaning of the words.
> 
> But in your world, where the filling out of paperwork, or a minor inconvenience = tyranny, that's no surprise.



Jake, get a life


----------



## BlackSand

71sportstourer said:


> Nice to know that you speak for everyone around here, and in all caps, Blacksand. You seem to believe that shouting makes you right. And you never answered the questions about whether being rude and insulting makes you popular with the ladies.



Nah ... I just highlight parts in case you want to skip over them trying to remain blind ... And they aren't in all caps either ... See if the bold parts here make a dent.

The 2nd Amendment  in the *US Constitution* identifies the right of citizens to bare arms &#8230; Then goes on to designate the *Federal Government's *responsibilities and powers.
Settled law has also added the ability to remove the right to bare arms from &#8230; *Felons* convicted of *Federal Crimes *&#8230; After due process.
Since then &#8230; Some* Federal *regulations have limited the certain weapons from being available to the public at large &#8230; And exceptions for the mentally ill.

The other laws that determine  &#8230; Who can carry &#8230; What they can carry &#8230; And how they can carry it &#8230; Are determined by* State Legislatures or Constitutions*. &#8230; Which is why they are different from *State to State*.

Here is what the *Louisiana State Constitution *says about the right to bear arms &#8230; And it was ratified with a 75% margin *recently*:

_*"The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, 
is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."*_

Now argue with that ...

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> When drunk driving was rampant ... They initiated Unconstitutional roadblocks with illegal searches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did, that's true, and it's a major blot on the face of liberty.  But two things: (a) I don't think those road searches were inspired by drunk driving, and (b) I don't think that's what the poster meant; he said "When drunk driving was rampant, the legal limit was tightened".  Meaning the BAL.  That's hardly the same thing as a Gestapo roadblock.
> 
> 
> 
> Trouble with this one is... smoking doesn't affect the smoker only.  It fucks up the entire room.  My mother died of lung cancer.  She wasn't a smoker.  I don't think a random smoker has the right to kill my mother.  Do you?
> 
> As for the "punitive" tax...   Fuck 'em.  If they're going to self-destruct in a completely selfish act, let's get _something _productive out of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> This point would appear not to apply after the first two points...
> 
> The poster's actual line "conservatives talk about Thomas Jefferson" as I read it draws a distinction between, on the one hand the social mores being modified by popular consent to address social problems in the case of drunk driving and smoking (both of which kill bystanders) and on the other hand, gun violence.  I'm not sure what Jefferson talk he's referring to, but his point is whereas we took on drunk driving and public smoking, conservatives go silent on this one.  In effect he's turning the OP around and asking "conservatives, what is _your _plan?".  That's my take.
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> Jefferson just happened to be a pretty avid supporter of the last point ... Didn't give a damn about driving drunk, and was a regular smoker.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jefferson drove drunk?  You're perhaps thinking of Franklin Pierce.
> And where's your background on his smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I keep saying ... It is the freaking Constitution that makes it so it doesn't matter how good you think one thing or another may be ... It isn't the business of the government.
> Of course don't get the idea that I ever thought you would understand ... I mean you made a comment and Thomas Jefferson and drivin drunk ... When it is obvious he didn't give a damn because there weren't any cars.
Click to expand...


--- Then why did you suggest there were?
It was your idea dood -- not mine.  Same with the smoking.



BlackSand said:


> You would do better sitting in front of a mirror and arguing with yourself.



I often get that impression with some people.

And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.



*I thank you for the tip ... But that is your way of looking at it not mine.*

I often do it because it breaks up the monotony of endless fine print ... As well as even further separates the thoughts.
To me it is more visually appealing as far as aesthetic purposes alone ... And has nothing to do with any thoughts of superiority or anger.

*I believe that your misconceptions are founded in your own fears of inadequacy.*

See how that separates that thought from "why I do it"  ... And makes the transition to "why I think it bothers you enough to comment on it".

*Have A Good Evening ... It's Been A Pleasure* (woo ... watch out, used caps there too)

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thank you for the tip ... But that is your way of looking at it not mine.
> 
> I often do it because it breaks up the monotony of endless fine print ... As well as even further separates the thoughts.
> To me it is more visually appealing as far as aesthetic purposes alone ... And has nothing to do with any thoughts of superiority or anger.
> 
> I believe that your misconceptions are founded in your own fears of inadequacy.
> 
> See how that separates that thought from "why I do it"  ... And makes the transition to "why I think it bothers you enough to comment on it".
> 
> Have A Good Evening ... It's Been A Pleasure (woo ... watch out, used caps there too)
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
I'm surprised you don't know that.  Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.

You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post.  Some kind of fermata?  That's a head scratcher.

Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.

Oh well, we all have our priorities...


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
> I'm surprised you don't know that.  Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.
> 
> You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post.  Some kind of fermata?  That's a head scratcher.
> 
> Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Oh well, we all have our priorities...



*If you can figure out how to shout at someone typing ... Then you are really smart.*

Personally I don't much care what other people do or think about the way they choose to visually present their work.
Looking around sometimes ... And not talking about content in particular other than the basics ... It is easy to disregard what someone types ... By recognizing the effort they put forth in presentation alone.

*But hey, that's just me ... And I don't impose my will on others ... As far as assuming they meet whatever standards I arbitrarily choose to employ. *

Then again ... I don't have to be team player here ... Don't need your approval ... And didn't ask for it.
The period thing is probably a really puzzler for you ... But if you have been listening to me shout at you all this time ... Or at least the reason I gave for why I do it other than shouting ... I bet you are smart enough you can figure it out.

*Edit:*
As far as the part regarding talking about me ... You brought it up ... If you don't want to talk about it or think we should be talking about something else ... Then don't say anything about it.

.


----------



## 71sportstourer

> They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...



So what you're saying is, crickets sound like people proposing universal background checks? 

What other lies are you propagating today?

FYI, the so called law and order party has no cred left in the area of public safety, sorta like they have no cred left with the middle class.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
> I'm surprised you don't know that.  Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.
> 
> You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post.  Some kind of fermata?  That's a head scratcher.
> 
> Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Oh well, we all have our priorities...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can figure out how to shout at someone typing ... Then you are really smart.
> 
> Personally I don't much care what other people do or think about the way they choose to visually present their work.
> 
> Looking around sometimes ... And not talking about content in particular other than the basics ... It is easy to disregard what someone types ... By recognizing the effort they put forth in presentation alone.
> 
> But hey, that's just me ... And I don't impose my will on others ... As far as assuming they meet whatever standards I arbitrarily choose to employ.
> 
> Then again ... I don't have to be team player here ... Don't need your approval ... And didn't ask for it.
> The period thing is probably a really puzzler for you ... But if you have been listening to me shout at you all this time ... Or at least the reason I gave for why I do it other than shouting ... I bet you are smart enough you can figure it out.
> 
> Edit:
> As far as the part regarding talking about me ... You brought it up ... If you don't want to talk about it or think we should be talking about something else ... Then don't say anything about it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting.  And bolding *every *other *sentence *just *distracts *from your *message*.  But then if you *don't* have much of *a* message, maybe *that's* what you *want*.  Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.

That's *so* cute.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting.  And bolding *every *other *sentence *just *distracts *from your *message*.  But then if you *don't* have much of *a* message, maybe *that's* what you *want*.  Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.
> 
> That's *so* cute.



*Universal would include everyone ... And since I already said I don't accept it ... Who are you talking to?*

Since you gave me a tip ... I will give you one ... Take it or leave it.
Look up the basic concepts of Jujitsu ... And then wrap your mind around the desire to apply them to internet conversation.

*I pull, you push ... You pull, I push ... Simple really.*

As far as anything else ... I will choose to respond to whatever you say that I feel like responding to ... And ignore whatever side roads you what to go down if it suits me.
You can make up whatever excuse suits your fancy as to why ... But you haven't gotten any of your assumptions correct yet.

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting.  And bolding *every *other *sentence *just *distracts *from your *message*.  But then if you *don't* have much of *a* message, maybe *that's* what you *want*.  Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.
> 
> That's *so* cute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal would include everyone ... And since I already said I don't accept it ... Who are you talking to?
> 
> Since you gave me a tip ... I will give you one ... Take it or leave it.
> Look up the basic concepts of Jujitsu ... And then wrap your mind around the desire to apply them to internet conversation.
> 
> I pull, you push ... You pull, I push ... Simple really.
> 
> As far as anything else ... I will choose to respond to whatever you say that I feel like responding to ... And ignore whatever side roads you what to go down if it suits me.
> You can make up whatever excuse suits your fancy as to why ... But you haven't gotten any of your assumptions correct yet.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You do whatever the fuck you want.  I'm just telling you how stupid it looks.
Not everyone would bother.  You're welcome.

Three posts in a row avoiding the question.  OK then.

... Next?


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting.  And bolding *every *other *sentence *just *distracts *from your *message*.  But then if you *don't* have much of *a* message, maybe *that's* what you *want*.  Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.
> 
> That's *so* cute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal would include everyone ... And since I already said I don't accept it ... Who are you talking to?
> 
> Since you gave me a tip ... I will give you one ... Take it or leave it.
> Look up the basic concepts of Jujitsu ... And then wrap your mind around the desire to apply them to internet conversation.
> 
> I pull, you push ... You pull, I push ... Simple really.
> 
> As far as anything else ... I will choose to respond to whatever you say that I feel like responding to ... And ignore whatever side roads you what to go down if it suits me.
> You can make up whatever excuse suits your fancy as to why ... But you haven't gotten any of your assumptions correct yet.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do whatever the fuck you want.  I'm just telling you how stupid it looks.
> Not everyone would bother.  You're welcome.
> 
> Three posts in a row avoiding the question.  OK then.
> 
> ... Next?
Click to expand...


I am sorry it took you that long to figure out I am going to do "what the fuck" I want to do ... And don't give shit what you think about it.
*Finally you are catching on ... I told you that you were smart enough you would eventually figure things out.*

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is, crickets sound like people proposing universal background checks?
Click to expand...

Universal background checks...  which will have no effect on gun violence whatsoever...


----------



## 71sportstourer

M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement. 

Typical of those who can only debate the gun issue as if it&#8217;s still the 1700s, instead of an age where many US school districts shell out for metal detectors and security guards. Of course, while nut you like to wish Ike was still President, today&#8217;s American students are competing with those of China, which has more students studying science than the U.S. has students. And of course, our kids will be even more in debt to the Chinese than this generation is. What do you think Jefferson and Monroe would think of that, gun nuts? But no, let&#8217;s pretend the Chinese aren&#8217;t there and talk about what Jefferson REALLY intended by allowing Americans to be armed with muskets. Enjoy the dumbed down America your delusional, ignorant selves have created.


----------



## zeke

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thank you for the tip ... But that is your way of looking at it not mine.
> 
> I often do it because it breaks up the monotony of endless fine print ... As well as even further separates the thoughts.
> To me it is more visually appealing as far as aesthetic purposes alone ... And has nothing to do with any thoughts of superiority or anger.
> 
> I believe that your misconceptions are founded in your own fears of inadequacy.
> 
> See how that separates that thought from "why I do it"  ... And makes the transition to "why I think it bothers you enough to comment on it".
> 
> Have A Good Evening ... It's Been A Pleasure (woo ... watch out, used caps there too)
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
> I'm surprised you don't know that.  Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.
> 
> You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post.  Some kind of* fermata*?  That's a head scratcher.
> 
> Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Oh well, we all have our priorities...
Click to expand...



Hot damn. A new word. I knew I could learn something from a gun nut thread. Thanks.
BTW, who is playing the music? Cause I already know who is dancing.


----------



## Wildman

Pogo said:


> You do whatever the fuck you want. * I'm just telling you how stupid it looks.*
> Not everyone would bother.  You're welcome.
> 
> Three posts in a row avoiding the question.  OK then.
> 
> ... Next?



it only looks stupid to stupid liberal pukes  ...  ...  get off it you stupid fuck.


----------



## Geaux4it

All we need to do is kill more bad guys with guns, or at the least, let them kill themselves, more than they kill good guys.

Its all about attrition

-Geaux


----------



## M14 Shooter

71sportstourer said:


> M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.


Typical anti-gun loon, speaking from complete ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You many not like that fact, but to pretend it isnlt a fact means you choose to lie to yourself.

Why do you choose to lie to yourself?


----------



## Geaux4it

M14 Shooter said:


> 71sportstourer said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical anti-gun loon, speaking from complete ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Fact:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> You many not like that fact, but to pretend it isnlt a fact means you choose to lie to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you choose to lie to yourself?
Click to expand...


And the anti-loons now want to say it is a right limited to the home. That is being challenged and will ultimately wind up at SCOTUS. Just a matter of time before all the criminal sheriffs who are denying concealed carry on a 'just cause' will then have to become 'shall issue.

Then crime drops nationally

-Geaux


----------



## jon_berzerk

*another one bites the dust* 

to a seat he won unopposed the last time &#8212; in part because he signed up Chambersburg as one of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun cities.

Pennsylvania Town Clings to Its Guns, Ousts Mayor | RealClearPolitics


----------



## kaz

71sportstourer said:


> M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.
> 
> Typical of those who can only debate the gun issue as if its still the 1700s, instead of an age where many US school districts shell out for metal detectors and security guards.



Irony, I love it.  The point in the op was that our drug laws do nothing to prevent high schoolers from getting all the drugs they want.  You're without answering the question why gun laws will work when drug laws don't, actually going to high schoolers in order to beg the question and assume that gun laws will work where drug laws don't.  LOL.



71sportstourer said:


> Of course, while nut you like to wish Ike was still President, todays American students are competing with those of China, which has more students studying science than the U.S. has students. And of course, our kids will be even more in debt to the Chinese than this generation is. What do you think Jefferson and Monroe would think of that, gun nuts? But no, lets pretend the Chinese arent there and talk about what Jefferson REALLY intended by allowing Americans to be armed with muskets. Enjoy the dumbed down America your delusional, ignorant selves have created.



WTF, China?  Was this a demonstration that our drug laws don't work?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Geaux4it said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 71sportstourer said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical anti-gun loon, speaking from complete ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Fact:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> You many not like that fact, but to pretend it isnlt a fact means you choose to lie to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you choose to lie to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the anti-loons now want to say it is a right limited to the home
Click to expand...

Yes...  it s impossible to soundly argue that you have less of a right to self-defense outside your home than you do inside it.

But, as they cannot provide a sound argument for any of the gun control laws they suupport, this is no surprise.


----------



## Geaux4it

If I lived in a big city like New York, I would pack everyday. Law or no law. 

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):

>> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.

Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, too&#8212;in the form of capital punishment&#8212;sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined&#8212;not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.

Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. What&#8217;s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions&#8212;dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest&#8212;masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don&#8217;t respect state boundaries.

To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles&#8212;and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain&#8212;each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors&#8212;for land, capital, and other settlers&#8212;and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. There&#8217;s never been an America, but rather several Americas&#8212;each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way. 




...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):
> 
> >> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.
> 
> Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, too&#8212;in the form of capital punishment&#8212;sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined&#8212;not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.
> 
> Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. What&#8217;s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions&#8212;dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest&#8212;masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don&#8217;t respect state boundaries.
> 
> To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles&#8212;and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain&#8212;each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors&#8212;for land, capital, and other settlers&#8212;and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. There&#8217;s never been an America, but rather several Americas&#8212;each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link



*Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.*

File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is probably some sense in the argument that culture and the Nations spoken of have some influence on tolerance towards violence ... But that may have a lot do with other factors.

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):
> 
> >> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.
> 
> Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, too&#8212;in the form of capital punishment&#8212;sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined&#8212;not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.
> 
> Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. What&#8217;s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions&#8212;dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest&#8212;masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don&#8217;t respect state boundaries.
> 
> To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles&#8212;and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain&#8212;each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors&#8212;for land, capital, and other settlers&#8212;and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. There&#8217;s never been an America, but rather several Americas&#8212;each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.
> 
> File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


No, the _*article *_is about that.  That's why I left a link.
Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial.  I even quoted the opening points.

But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate.  Hence the disclaimer at the top.  I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.

Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise  _The Nine Nations of North America_ ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859"]q.v.[/ame])


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.
> 
> File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the _*article *_is about that.  That's why I left a link.
> Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial.  I even quoted the opening points.
> 
> But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate.  Hence the disclaimer at the top.  I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.
> 
> Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise  _The Nine Nations of North America_ ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859"]q.v.[/ame])
Click to expand...


I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."

If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.

.


----------



## Pogo

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.
> 
> File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the _*article *_is about that.  That's why I left a link.
> Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial.  I even quoted the opening points.
> 
> But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate.  Hence the disclaimer at the top.  I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.
> 
> Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise  _The Nine Nations of North America_ ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859"]q.v.[/ame])
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
> You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."
> 
> If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.
Click to expand...



Wow  --  just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it".  Saves keystrokes.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the _*article *_is about that.  That's why I left a link.
> Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial.  I even quoted the opening points.
> 
> But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate.  Hence the disclaimer at the top.  I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.
> 
> Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise  _The Nine Nations of North America_ (q.v.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
> You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."
> 
> If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow  --  just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it".  Saves keystrokes.
Click to expand...


Wow ... Think that because you think you are smart ... It means you are.
Give it a few more keystrokes ... And you may get a grant ... Then get paid to tell us what we already know.

.


----------



## Pogo

Please.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BlackSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
> You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."
> 
> If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow  --  just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it".  Saves keystrokes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow ... Think that because you think you are smart ... It means you are.
> Give it a few more keystrokes ... And you may get a grant ... Then get paid to tell us what we already know.
Click to expand...

Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.


----------



## BlackSand

Pogo said:


> Please.



Man you are brilliant ... You don't need to be digging holes.

Go conduct a study on why a lot of fish in the ocean have bigger teeth than their freshwater cousins ... Then tie it into the moon's influence on tides.
You can do it ... There is a link ... And you will feel smarter for it.

.


----------



## Pogo

M14 Shooter said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow  --  just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it".  Saves keystrokes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow ... Think that because you think you are smart ... It means you are.
> Give it a few more keystrokes ... And you may get a grant ... Then get paid to tell us what we already know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.
Click to expand...


You're the one using "emotion" here, son.  Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything.  It analyzes simple demographics of how different regions view the whole thing, as well as the greater picture of how they view the concepts of crime and punishment.  That's IT.

I can see why you'd want to bury that and pretend it's something else so you can go on with your murmuring of "yammer yammer yammer anti-gun loons yammer yammer".  Because ignorance is bliss.

Seven posts in a row attacking the messenger and saying absolutely nothing about the actual content.  So you tell me who's melting down into "emotional".

Dismissed.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one using "emotion" here, son.  Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything.
Click to expand...


Let's go to the video tape.



Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out.  You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are.  That's your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not cancellation, that's *escalation*.  There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.
Click to expand...




Pogo said:


> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.



Most liberals in their naivete argue that gun laws will prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.  But you actually argue that it's bad for honest citizens to have guns.  You shoot back at a criminal and it's "escalation."  Having a gun like a criminal does is like dealing with a burning building by setting it on fire.  For God sakes if a criminal has a gun, make sure you don't.  Wow.

M14Shooter pegged you for what you are, an anti-gun loon.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



One hundred plus pages of liberals not answering the question.  It's a simple question...


----------



## Spoonman

Pogo said:


> If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):
> 
> >> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.
> 
> Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, tooin the form of capital punishmentsets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combinednot surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.
> 
> Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. Whats less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regionsdividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwestmasks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines dont respect state boundaries.
> 
> To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Islesand from France, the Netherlands, and Spaineach with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitorsfor land, capital, and other settlersand even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Theres never been an America, but rather several Americaseach a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link



how many babies did we kill?  I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> You're the one using "emotion" here, son.  Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything.  It analyzes simple demographics of how different regions view the whole thing, as well as the greater picture of how they view the concepts of crime and punishment.  That's IT.
> 
> I can see why you'd want to bury that and pretend it's something else so you can go on with your murmuring of "yammer yammer yammer anti-gun loons yammer yammer".  Because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Seven posts in a row attacking the messenger and saying absolutely nothing about the actual content.  So you tell me who's melting down into "emotional".
> 
> Dismissed.



Where the article goes wrong is that it concludes that agreement on either freer access to guns or stricter restrictions would be the end of the debate.  The problem for you on the left is that gun laws don't work, even if you got them, the carnage would not stop and neither would the debate.

The bluest cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun deaths.  The reddest, gun culture areas have the fewest.  John Adams, facts are stubborn things....


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.



I disagree, he's far beyond the normal anti-gun loons.  The normal anti-gun loons take the ostrich approach and pretend that gun laws work and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Pogo actually thinks it's bad to have a gun even if the criminals do, and it's bad to shoot back.  He refers shooting at a criminal as "escalation" and compares it to burning down a building to protect it from fire.  He also doesn't know when you're defending yourself from someone committing a crime which one of you is the bad guy.  He's way beyond "normal" even for a liberal.


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> If I lived in a big city like New York, I would pack everyday. Law or no law.
> 
> -Geaux



Having lived and worked in New York for a couple decades, I never felt less safe there than anywhere else.  You just have to pay attention to where you are and your surroundings.  I once wandered from my hotel in Buffalo without paying attention and when I finally did look around felt in more jeopardy than I ever felt in The City.  Paying attention to your surroundings is a good thing everywhere.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, he's far beyond the normal anti-gun loons.  The normal anti-gun loons take the ostrich approach and pretend that gun laws work and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Pogo actually thinks it's bad to have a gun even if the criminals do, and it's bad to shoot back.  He refers shooting at a criminal as "escalation" and compares it to burning down a building to protect it from fire.  He also doesn't know when you're defending yourself from someone committing a crime which one of you is the bad guy.  He's way beyond "normal" even for a liberal.
Click to expand...


Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then?  I look forward to that.  Coward.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one using "emotion" here, son.  Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything.  It analyzes simple demographics of how different regions view the whole thing, as well as the greater picture of how they view the concepts of crime and punishment.  That's IT.
> 
> I can see why you'd want to bury that and pretend it's something else so you can go on with your murmuring of "yammer yammer yammer anti-gun loons yammer yammer".  Because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Seven posts in a row attacking the messenger and saying absolutely nothing about the actual content.  So you tell me who's melting down into "emotional".
> 
> Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the article goes wrong is that it concludes that agreement on either freer access to guns or stricter restrictions would be the end of the debate.  The problem for you on the left is that gun laws don't work, even if you got them, the carnage would not stop and neither would the debate.
> 
> The bluest cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun deaths.  The reddest, gun culture areas have the fewest.  John Adams, facts are stubborn things....
Click to expand...


I've never argued for any gun laws.  Your head is up your ass.  Your thrust throughout this thread has been suppression of any hint of any thought that doesn't sync with your own preconceptions.  It's how you anti-thought loons roll -- as if any challenging idea is some kind of mud to scrape off.

And if you'd taken the two weeks or whatever it is that it's been sitting there to actually READ the article you'd know by now it didn't reach such a conclusion:

>> With such sharp regional differences, the idea that the United States would ever reach consensus on any issue having to do with violence seems far-fetched. The cultural gulf between Appalachia and Yankeedom, Deep South and New Netherland is simply too large. ... For now, the country will remain split on how best to make its citizens safer, with Deep South and its allies bent on deterrence through armament and the threat of capital punishment, and Yankeedom and its allies determined to bring peace through constraints such as gun control.  <<

Indeed, "conclusion" wasn't the point.  The entire point was to understand the regional backgrounds we work with.

Maybe you should actually read links first.  Duh.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> I've never argued for any gun laws.  Your head is up your ass.



Really?



Pogo said:


> No, that's not cancellation, that's *escalation*.  There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.





Pogo said:


> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.


----------



## kaz

pogo said:
			
		

> Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then?  I look forward to that.  Coward.



You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory.  And you call ... me ...  a coward?  That's just rich.

You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):
> 
> >> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.
> 
> Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, tooin the form of capital punishmentsets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combinednot surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.
> 
> Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. Whats less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regionsdividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwestmasks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines dont respect state boundaries.
> 
> To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Islesand from France, the Netherlands, and Spaineach with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitorsfor land, capital, and other settlersand even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Theres never been an America, but rather several Americaseach a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many babies did we kill?  I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.
Click to expand...


--- huh?  
Who?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One hundred plus pages of liberals not answering the question.  It's a simple question...
Click to expand...


One hundred plus pages of a troll going 

You don't want a debate; you want an echo chamber to make yourself feel better.
Dismissed.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many babies did we kill?  I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- huh?
> Who?
Click to expand...


The spoonman is great, I love ya man.

But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is.  It was a red herring.

Seriously, you didn't get that though?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then?  I look forward to that.  Coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory.  And you call ... me ...  a coward?  That's just rich.
> 
> You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.
Click to expand...


Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag.  Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.

And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made.  Just as you're doing here.  Coward.

See a shrink.  You have a disease.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One hundred plus pages of liberals not answering the question.  It's a simple question...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One hundred plus pages of a troll going
> 
> You don't want a debate; you want an echo chamber to make yourself feel better.
> Dismissed.
Click to expand...


That may be, but there's only one way to prove it.  Actually answer the question in the op.  Since you haven't, your accusations of what you believe I want are irrelevant. So, directly address the op and we'll see.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then?  I look forward to that.  Coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory.  And you call ... me ...  a coward?  That's just rich.
> 
> You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag.  Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.
> 
> And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made.  Just as you're doing here.  Coward.
> 
> See a shrink.  You have a disease.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see what confused you.  You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two.  Apparently that was a double negative to you.



Pogo said:


> No, that's not cancellation, that's *escalation*.  There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.





Pogo said:


> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.


----------



## RKMBrown

How to make sure criminals don't have guns... hmm... Don't let the criminals out of jail?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many babies did we kill?  I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- huh?
> Who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The spoonman is great, I love ya man.
> 
> But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is.  It was a red herring.
> 
> Seriously, you didn't get that though?
Click to expand...


No, I didn't.  Nobody brought up abortion and it's not an abortion thread, nor does it appear anywhere in the article.  Why would I see a red herring coming?

Given your track record of interpreting posts, perhaps we'd better let Spoon answer for himself.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who declines every request to man up and clarify your view since your statements are endlessly contradictory.  And you call ... me ...  a coward?  That's just rich.
> 
> You can't even remember if you're arguing for gun laws or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag.  Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.
> 
> And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made.  Just as you're doing here.  Coward.
> 
> See a shrink.  You have a disease.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what confused you.  You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two.  Apparently that was a double negative to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not cancellation, that's *escalation*.  There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy.  There's nothing about "laws" in there.  Never has been.  Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.

 Not my problem.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- huh?
> Who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spoonman is great, I love ya man.
> 
> But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is.  It was a red herring.
> 
> Seriously, you didn't get that though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.  Nobody brought up abortion and it's not an abortion thread, nor does it appear anywhere in the article.  Why would I see a red herring coming?
> 
> Given your track record of interpreting posts, perhaps we'd better let Spoon answer for himself.
Click to expand...


great example of begging the question.

BTW, the reason you should have understood that it was a red herring was that his reference was obvious whether you saw it or not.

But then you're the guy who can't man up and clarify what you are arguing.  I meant my surprise you didn't get his obvious abortion reference rhetorically, I wasn't surprised at all.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The spoonman is great, I love ya man.
> 
> But he was saying that gun laws are not barbaric, abortion is.  It was a red herring.
> 
> Seriously, you didn't get that though?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't.  Nobody brought up abortion and it's not an abortion thread, nor does it appear anywhere in the article.  Why would I see a red herring coming?
> 
> Given your track record of interpreting posts, perhaps we'd better let Spoon answer for himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> great example of begging the question.
> 
> BTW, the reason you should have understood that it was a red herring was that his reference was obvious whether you saw it or not.
> 
> But then you're the guy who can't man up and clarify what you are arguing.  I meant my surprise you didn't get his obvious abortion reference rhetorically, I wasn't surprised at all.
Click to expand...


Then why can't you just let him answer for himself?  Control freak much?

What you mean is, it's not what you want to hear so you just keep going "I know you are but what am I" - like debating Pee Wee Herman.

Come back when you grow up.


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
Click to expand...


bump


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bump
Click to expand...


Shall not infringe INCLUDES not placing a punitive tax on an item to bar low income from exercising their rights under the Constitution. You nor your party can justify insurance on gun owners and again that would be an infringement of the right to bear arms designed to punitively prevent citizens from exercising the right.

As for making all firearm crimes federal that too is unconstitutional as the Fed can not usurp State powers from them any more then States can usurp Federal powers.


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> As for the question
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.


The "demand" for guns is widespread, multi-faceted in ways well beyiond your depth - in fact, it stems from every legal puroise someone might have for a gun and the constitutionaly protected right to same.   In that context, how do you reduce that demand?



> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.


This is as unconstitutional as taxing the crap out of abortions with a regulatory intent to "reduce demand".  Fail. 



> Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.


See above - never mind that there's no rational basis for this.  Fail.



> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes...


Based on what?   On what rational basis can you make every simple gun-related murder/armed robbery a federal crime?  Fail.



> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.


Unfortunately for you, and leaving the question of efficacy completely alone, there are numerous, clear constitutional issues with your ideas, as noted above.  Fail.

For whatever reason you faill to see the fallacy in trying to pass a law that prevents people from brealing the law.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Then why can't you just let him answer for himself?  Control freak much?


You don't grasp the concept of a public message board, do you kiddie?



Pogo said:


> Come back when you grow up.



Come back when you man up


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bump
Click to expand...

You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bump
Click to expand...


So if you're going to bump it, why don't you answer the key part of the question?  Why is your proposal going to work when we can't stop kids from getting drugs?

It makes no sense.  Whether guns are illegal or you just drive the price up, either way, people will simply switch to illegal guns.  You're begging the question.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
Click to expand...

Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.
They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.



She's not responsible for the consequences of her position because carnage wasn't her intent.  Now she doesn't give anyone else that cop out, that they are not responsible for the unintended consequences of their positions, but as a liberal she doesn't have be held to her own standard.  It's a perk of believing in an ideology that believes truth is determined by majority vote.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.
> They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
Click to expand...


They do revel in body counts.  And of course that's why they count the shooter too.  The shooter was of course a victim of evil corporations as well.  Or the rich.  Or racists.  I forget which one we're blaming for this one.  Maybe it's energy companies...


----------



## RKMBrown

M14 Shooter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.
> They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
Click to expand...


GRR...

IMO The people who passed the law, signed the law, and implemented the law to disarm the school staff and thus aid and abet the killing of the children, should be tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.  No amount of punishment is enough for these people.


----------



## kaz

RetiredGySgt said:


> Shall not infringe INCLUDES not placing a punitive tax on an item to bar low income from exercising their rights under the Constitution. You nor your party can justify insurance on gun owners and again that would be an infringement of the right to bear arms designed to punitively prevent citizens from exercising the right.
> 
> As for making all firearm crimes federal that too is unconstitutional as the Fed can not usurp State powers from them any more then States can usurp Federal powers.



Don't expect an answer.  Candy doesn't address irrelevant points or questions.  You know, like asking her to address the op...


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.
> They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do revel in body counts.  And of course that's why they count the shooter too.  The shooter was of course a victim of evil corporations as well.  Or the rich.  Or racists.  I forget which one we're blaming for this one.  Maybe it's energy companies...
Click to expand...

GWB.  They blame him.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons look forward to school shootings - it gives them an emotional weapons with which they can push for more gun control, and without which they know their efforts will continue to fail.
> They belive that the more kids killed with a gun, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GRR...
> 
> IMO The people who passed the law, signed the law, and implemented the law to disarm the school staff and thus aid and abet the killing of the children, should be tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.  No amount of punishment is enough for these people.
Click to expand...


I'd be happy if the country just got smarter and stopped listening to liberal morons.   Unfortunately, they are clearly winning.  The power of having the only microphone is overwhelming.  I know so many Republicans who believe the tea party is extreme and racist, corporations are to blame for the housing meltdown and all the other lies liberals intone.  People have to stop buying Democratic party phishing, there is no other way.


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a misnomer to believe that if gun laws  had been non-existent that there would have been shooting back.  Likely not in Columbine, Sandyhook, VA Tech, etc...
> 
> As for the question
> 
> It's a very long term proposition but the only way to effectively attack the problem is to begin to attack the supply and you do that by decreasing the demand.
> 
> 
> Tax the holy crap out of firearms and ammunition.  Pass laws making it a requirement that gun owners carry liabiltiy insurance per weapon--very expensive.
> 
> Also, make all gun crimes federal crimes and steep minimum sentences for armed robbery.  You use a gun, you're going away for 20 years; no parole, no time off for good behavior, soyanara.
> 
> Basically make firearms the equivalent of cigarettes.
> 
> As stated it's a long-term proposition but the sooner we get started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
Click to expand...


So ... Adam Lanza was just an innocent bystander. 

Logical yoga.  Whatever it takes, right?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> You are one EVIL SOB.  CHILDREN WERE KILLED BECAUSE OF YOUR STUPID IDEAS TO DISARM EVERYONE IN A SCHOOL TO LEAVE THE CHILDREN TO HIDE UNDER THEIR DESKS AND BECOME SHOOTING VICTIMS WHILE THE ADULTS STOOD AROUND TRYING TO COVER UP THE CHILDREN AND TAKE THE BULLETS.  I don't neg very often buy you just earned one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... Adam Lanza was just an innocent bystander.
> 
> Logical yoga.  Whatever it takes, right?
Click to expand...


strawman

seriously, you didn't even get his point?  and you consider yourself objective in this?


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not infringe INCLUDES not placing a punitive tax on an item to bar low income from exercising their rights under the Constitution. You nor your party can justify insurance on gun owners and again that would be an infringement of the right to bear arms designed to punitively prevent citizens from exercising the right.
> 
> As for making all firearm crimes federal that too is unconstitutional as the Fed can not usurp State powers from them any more then States can usurp Federal powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect an answer.  Candy doesn't address irrelevant points or questions.  You know, like asking her to address the op...
Click to expand...


Replace the tax with liability insurance on each firearm...there, problem solved.  Currently, if your gun kills someone, it's totally up to the deceased to pay for their funeral, loss of income, pain and suffering, etc...  You get jail time which does little to compensate your victims.  

Liability insurance instead of taxes.  Cha-ching!

As far as making crimes federal crimes, it can be done...as always, the gun nuts are just full of excuses; not solutions.


----------



## RKMBrown

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not infringe INCLUDES not placing a punitive tax on an item to bar low income from exercising their rights under the Constitution. You nor your party can justify insurance on gun owners and again that would be an infringement of the right to bear arms designed to punitively prevent citizens from exercising the right.
> 
> As for making all firearm crimes federal that too is unconstitutional as the Fed can not usurp State powers from them any more then States can usurp Federal powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect an answer.  Candy doesn't address irrelevant points or questions.  You know, like asking her to address the op...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Replace the tax with liability insurance on each firearm...there, problem solved.  Currently, if your gun kills someone, it's totally up to the deceased to pay for their funeral, loss of income, pain and suffering, etc...  You get jail time which does little to compensate your victims.
> 
> Liability insurance instead of taxes.  Cha-ching!
> 
> As far as making crimes federal crimes, it can be done...as always, the gun nuts are just full of excuses; not solutions.
Click to expand...


Screw insurance.  First you want to force people who don't need health care to buy health insurance instead of food for their children.  Now you want to force innocent people to buy liability insurance before they are allowed to defend themselves from criminals.  WTH is wrong with people like you?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not infringe INCLUDES not placing a punitive tax on an item to bar low income from exercising their rights under the Constitution. You nor your party can justify insurance on gun owners and again that would be an infringement of the right to bear arms designed to punitively prevent citizens from exercising the right.
> 
> As for making all firearm crimes federal that too is unconstitutional as the Fed can not usurp State powers from them any more then States can usurp Federal powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect an answer.  Candy doesn't address irrelevant points or questions.  You know, like asking her to address the op...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Replace the tax with liability insurance on each firearm
Click to expand...

Addressed.  Fail.



> Currently, if your gun kills someone, it's totally up to the deceased to pay for their funeral, loss of income, pain and suffering, etc.


I am sure you know people can sue for wrongful death - thus, your statement, above. is a lie.



> As far as making crimes federal crimes, it can be done.


Addressed.   Fail.

Thank you for again helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RKMBrown said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect an answer.  Candy doesn't address irrelevant points or questions.  You know, like asking her to address the op...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Replace the tax with liability insurance on each firearm...there, problem solved.  Currently, if your gun kills someone, it's totally up to the deceased to pay for their funeral, loss of income, pain and suffering, etc...  You get jail time which does little to compensate your victims.
> 
> Liability insurance instead of taxes.  Cha-ching!
> 
> As far as making crimes federal crimes, it can be done...as always, the gun nuts are just full of excuses; not solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Screw insurance.  First you want to force people who don't need health care to buy health insurance instead of food for their children.  Now you want to force innocent people to buy liability insurance before they are allowed to defend themselves from criminals.  WTH is wrong with people like you?
Click to expand...

They bevieve everyone should be dependent on the state for their security (and everything else)  and so are more than happy to create a nation of innoect people devoid of effective means to defend themselves.


----------



## henryporter

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit.  And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence.  300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.


----------



## RKMBrown

henryporter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit.  And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence.  300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.
Click to expand...


Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.


----------



## M14 Shooter

henryporter said:


> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country....


... of which <0.0028% are used to commit murder, any argument/premise that we need additional gun contriol is simply bullshit.

How is it that gun-related crime is SO bad that we need to further restrict the rghts of the law abiding, but NOT so bad that the law-abiding have no legitimate need for a gun with which to defend themselves?


----------



## RKMBrown

M14 Shooter said:


> henryporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country....
> 
> 
> 
> ... of which <0.0028% are used to commit murder, any argument/premise that we need additional gun contriol is simply bullshit.
> 
> How is it that gun-related crime is SO bad that we need to further restrict the rghts of the law abiding, but NOT so bad that the law-abiding have no legitimate need for a gun with which to defend themselves?
Click to expand...


Easy, disarming the citizens is just one of the steps to the goal of converting the country to communism.


----------



## kaz

henryporter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit.  And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence.  300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.
Click to expand...


At the Washington Navy yard, how many people in that parking lot owned guns and knew how to use them and their guns were irrelevant because they followed the rules and didn't have them?

Liberals, you create laws that are a slap on the wrist for criminals but devastating to an honest citizen. Then when honest citizens follow the law and criminals don't, you pat yourself on the back for how right you were.  Oh, and we're stupid and just repeat Rush Limbaugh.  You people are mental pedestrians.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect an answer.  Candy doesn't address irrelevant points or questions.  You know, like asking her to address the op...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Replace the tax with liability insurance on each firearm...there, problem solved.  Currently, if your gun kills someone, it's totally up to the deceased to pay for their funeral, loss of income, pain and suffering, etc...  You get jail time which does little to compensate your victims.
> 
> Liability insurance instead of taxes.  Cha-ching!
Click to expand...

Cool.  Now what if you answer the question in the op like 140 pages ago.  Why is this going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals when you can't even keep pot out of the hands of teenagers?



candycorn said:


> As far as making crimes federal crimes, it can be done...as always, the gun nuts are just full of excuses; not solutions.



What difference does making it a "federal" crime make?  You thought somehow that criminals won't cross the line of breaking a federal law?  That's some sort of honor system among them?  Sure, we'll break State laws, but Federal?  It's just not right, nope, not going there.  I'm not seeing any evidence that happens, please back up whatever this is supposed to mean.


----------



## Pogo

RKMBrown said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country....
> 
> 
> 
> ... of which <0.0028% are used to commit murder, any argument/premise that we need additional gun contriol is simply bullshit.
> 
> How is it that gun-related crime is SO bad that we need to further restrict the rghts of the law abiding, but NOT so bad that the law-abiding have no legitimate need for a gun with which to defend themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy, disarming the citizens is just one of the steps to the goal of converting the country to communism.
Click to expand...


"Communism" 

Somebody hasn't turned his calendar over since 1954...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... of which <0.0028% are used to commit murder, any argument/premise that we need additional gun contriol is simply bullshit.
> 
> How is it that gun-related crime is SO bad that we need to further restrict the rghts of the law abiding, but NOT so bad that the law-abiding have no legitimate need for a gun with which to defend themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, disarming the citizens is just one of the steps to the goal of converting the country to communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Communism"
> 
> Somebody hasn't turned his calendar over since 1954...
Click to expand...


Read the Communist manifesto and you'll notice not only the same concepts as the Democratic party platform but the same rhetoric.


----------



## Kosh

M14 Shooter said:


> henryporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country....
> 
> 
> 
> ... of which <0.0028% are used to commit murder, any argument/premise that we need additional gun contriol is simply bullshit.
> 
> How is it that gun-related crime is SO bad that we need to further restrict the rghts of the law abiding, but NOT so bad that the law-abiding have no legitimate need for a gun with which to defend themselves?
Click to expand...


Just proves that most of the gun owners are responsible.

However the far left would love to take away your guns so they can sell them to the Mexican drug lords so the far left can stay in power. 

Note: this is sarcasm and mocking of the far left.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, disarming the citizens is just one of the steps to the goal of converting the country to communism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Communism"
> 
> Somebody hasn't turned his calendar over since 1954...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the Communist manifesto and you'll notice not only the same concepts as the Democratic party platform but the same rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend:  *Two people* haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.

Better?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Communism"
> 
> Somebody hasn't turned his calendar over since 1954...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Communist manifesto and you'll notice not only the same concepts as the Democratic party platform but the same rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend:  *Two people* haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.
> 
> Better?
Click to expand...


The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx.  He wrote it with Friedrich Engels.  That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."

Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book.  That is what we are referring to.

BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848.  It still wasn't written on a calendar though.


----------



## kaz

Kosh said:


> Note: this is sarcasm and mocking of the far left.



Sad you have to explain that, isn't it?  But I agree, you do.  I've seen so many liberals not grasp it no matter how obvious you are about it.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the Communist manifesto and you'll notice not only the same concepts as the Democratic party platform but the same rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend:  *Two people* haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.
> 
> Better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx.  He wrote it with Friedrich Engels.  That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."
> 
> Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book.  That is what we are referring to.
> 
> BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848.  It still wasn't written on a calendar though.
Click to expand...


Oh the density...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend:  *Two people* haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.
> 
> Better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx.  He wrote it with Friedrich Engels.  That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."
> 
> Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book.  That is what we are referring to.
> 
> BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848.  It still wasn't written on a calendar though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
Click to expand...


What difference does the year make?  It's a political philosophy embraced by the Democratic party.  They love the ideology, they love the rhetoric, they just don't like the word.  The year "1954" is irrelevant to that.


----------



## henryporter

RKMBrown said:


> henryporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit.  And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence.  300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.
Click to expand...


Well dipshit, here's how utterly stupid you are, I've never been banned, moron.  You can't even stay on topic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

henryporter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit.  And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence.  300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well dipshit, here's how utterly stupid you are, I've never been banned, moron.  You can't even stay on topic.
Click to expand...


I can, care to ACTUALLY answer the OP? Tell us how you will take weapons from CRIMINALS and no making everyone a criminal is not the answer.


----------



## RKMBrown

henryporter said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> henryporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit.  And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence.  300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well dipshit, here's how utterly stupid you are, I've never been banned, moron.  You can't even stay on topic.
Click to expand...


Where did I say you were banned?  I suppose you can't read either. Note: I, unlike you, provided a solution.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Stop selling guns to criminals.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag.  Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.
> 
> And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made.  Just as you're doing here.  Coward.
> 
> See a shrink.  You have a disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what confused you.  You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two.  Apparently that was a double negative to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
> 
> Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire.  Or hose it down with gasoline.
> Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other.  They're additive, not exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy.  There's nothing about "laws" in there.  Never has been.  Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.
> 
> Not my problem.
Click to expand...


LOL, read the op and the title of the thread.  You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.

And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Bumberclyde said:


> Stop selling guns to criminals.



What if we passed laws that says felons could not own guns ?


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling guns to criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if we passed laws that says felons could not own guns ?
Click to expand...


LOL, that's a good point.  I assume that's tongue in cheek since we do have those laws.  Which means liberals are saying that sure, if we say felons can't buy guns, then OK, felons are still buying guns, but if we pass laws that no one can buy guns, then felons won't buy guns.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what confused you.  You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two.  Apparently that was a double negative to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy.  There's nothing about "laws" in there.  Never has been.  Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, read the op and the title of the thread.  You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.
> 
> And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?
Click to expand...


I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy.  There's nothing about "laws" in there.  Never has been.  Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.
> 
> Not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, read the op and the title of the thread.  You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.
> 
> And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.
> 
> Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.
Click to expand...


"Hiding"?? 

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, read the op and the title of the thread.  You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.
> 
> And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.
> 
> Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Hiding"??
> 
> I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.
> 
> You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?
> 
> Lying asshole.
Click to expand...


I quoted you so you could find it easily.  I thought we should have the discussion in the thread on the subject we were discussing.  It would appear to have worked, no?

So can you clarify your actual position since you say that when you argue against guns in a thread on gun laws that didn't mean you were for gun laws?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, read the op and the title of the thread.  You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.
> 
> And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.
> 
> Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Hiding"??
> 
> I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.
> 
> You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?
> 
> Lying asshole.
Click to expand...


So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.
> 
> Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hiding"??
> 
> I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.
> 
> You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?
> 
> Lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted you so you could find it easily.  I thought we should have the discussion in the thread on the subject we were discussing.  It would appear to have worked, no?
> 
> So can you clarify your actual position since you say that when you argue against guns in a thread on gun laws that didn't mean you were for gun laws?
Click to expand...


You're making that leap, not me.  Again, where have I brought up gun laws _*at all *_except to dismiss them as ineffective?

I'm not responsible for your canards and strawmen, liar.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.
> 
> Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hiding"??
> 
> I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.
> 
> You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?
> 
> Lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?
Click to expand...


Not what's going on here.  Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off.  Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here.  It doesn't work in either place.

She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar.  Why should I give her the freaking time of day?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Hiding"??
> 
> I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.
> 
> You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?
> 
> Lying asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what's going on here.  Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off.  Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here.  It doesn't work in either place.
> 
> She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar.  Why should I give her the freaking time of day?
Click to expand...


So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Hiding"??
> 
> I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.
> 
> You're a fucking liar and I've proven that.  Twice.  Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?
> 
> Lying asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not what's going on here.  Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off.  Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here.  It doesn't work in either place.
> 
> She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar.  Why should I give her the freaking time of day?
Click to expand...


I gave pretty clear reasons for every statement.  Instead of addressing the point, you have a hissy fit and run around calling me a liar. 

For example, I was a liar for saying you called me "female" when you called me "she."

On the bright side, you are a hoot.  I do apologize for saying you are not funny.

In the end, you are an intellectual coward.  You made endlessly contradictory statements on gun laws, that is how we got into this.  I suggested if you clarify your position, maybe that would tie it all together and it would make sense.  I don't see how you can tie your contradictory statements together to make sense, but it's on you to do that.

And instead, Sir Pogo turned his tail and fled.  Run away, run away, and throw shit clods at anyone you see...


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what's going on here.  Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off.  Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here.  It doesn't work in either place.
> 
> She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar.  Why should I give her the freaking time of day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?
Click to expand...


I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around.  Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site.  It's the issue I came to this site for.  But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content.  So why the fuck should I enable that?

Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything.  You're taking the word of a known liar.  She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear.  That's juvenile bullshit.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what's going on here.  Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off.  Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here.  It doesn't work in either place.
> 
> She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar.  Why should I give her the freaking time of day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around.  Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site.  It's the issue I came to this site for.  But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content.  So why the fuck should I enable that?
> 
> Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything.  You're taking the word of a known liar.  She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear.  That's juvenile bullshit.
Click to expand...


Actually I went back at the time and pointed out all the contradictory statements to you.  You couldn't explain them.  So I said just clarify your position, you couldn't do that.

But hey, you're the guy who hands me my ass by telling me you didn't call me female or a girl when you started referring to me as "she."  LOL.  Oh, and calling me "she" isn't an insult to women.

You're just a chicken shit coward who wants to make snarky statements and then run away and hide from manning up to explaining your position and then you curse and bluster when you get called on it.


----------



## SwimExpert

*I would really like to murder someone today, but it would be illegal for me to carry a concealed hand gun so I guess I'll just watch cartoons.*

~_Said no criminal, ever._


----------



## dannyboys

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.


What a load of Lib. crap.
The FACT is criminals are always going to get illegal guns from other criminals.
Here's your basic stupid Lib. idea: ".............will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them......"
Anyone with an IQ higher than a slice of Wonder bread KNOWS the illegal gun sellers don't give a sweet flying fuck' about their "responsibility". Otherwise they'd be selling used fucking CARS!
"Let' see. I have thirty stolen hand guns to move today but I'm worried that if I sell one to that simian on the next corner and he murders another simian with it I could be held 'responsible'". Ya fucking right!
God LIBs are stupid!


----------



## dannyboys

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.


The main location for the VAST majority of 'gun violence' is in the inner cities. Look who are committing endemic violence on their own race.
Afraid to say the word 'Blacks'?
You could remove by force every illegal hand gun in every inner city and the violent crime rate wouldn't budge. 
Everyone knows this fact.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around.  Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site.  It's the issue I came to this site for.  But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content.  So why the fuck should I enable that?
> 
> Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything.  You're taking the word of a known liar.  She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear.  That's juvenile bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I went back at the time and pointed out all the contradictory statements to you.  You couldn't explain them.  So I said just clarify your position, you couldn't do that.
> 
> But hey, you're the guy who hands me my ass by telling me you didn't call me female or a girl when you started referring to me as "she."  LOL.  Oh, and calling me "she" isn't an insult to women.
> 
> You're just a chicken shit coward who wants to make snarky statements and then run away and hide from manning up to explaining your position and then you curse and bluster when you get called on it.
Click to expand...


Once again, if any such thing existed you could quote it.  Once again, you can't, because you're a liar.

Actually calling you "she" prolly is an insult to women, just as anything I compared a proven liar to would be an insult to that group.  But that's your doing, not mine.  As for you personally, I'm just going by your avatar.  Maybe you're confused about yourself.  See a doctor and ask for a road map.  Maybe look over their shoulder at the chart where it says "gender".  Then again we shouldn't be surprised if you're a male representing himself as a female as some kind of pissant protection -- you lie about everything else, why not that too?

This incessant yowling every time anyone gives an answer you don't like is tedious.  Now that I embarrassed you in the current thread you run back here as if it's some kind of shelter against reality.  Fact is I've laid out my positions for as long as I've been at this site -- it was the issue that brought me here, that point to make.  And as long as this old thread has been around you've been burying your head in the sand and pretending not to read it, which just makes you look stupid.

Have at it.

And bring those phantom quotes in so we can all have another laugh.  Pissant.


----------



## dannyboys

Bumberclyde said:


> Stop selling guns to criminals.


Ya tell that to the criminals who are selling the guns. I'm sure they give a sweet flying fuck what you tell them.
You idiot LIBs are never going to get it through your heads that there is a demand by inner city Blacks for illegal hand guns. (They aren't sentient enough to work a long gun). That demand is being filled by other criminals.
The only people buying legal hand guns are Whites who want them for self protection against Blacks mainly.
Even our maggot filled Trayvon was able to get an illegal hand gun.
I'll never forget sitting in the back yard of a typical suburban White couple in their early thirties. A cream colored brand new Escalade full of 'young Black men' kept slowly driving down their alley and making obscene comments to the young woman.
She just smiled and patted the lounge pillow she was sitting on and said under her breath: "Come get some mother fuckers". She had a 9MM tucked under it.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around.  Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site.  It's the issue I came to this site for.  But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content.  So why the fuck should I enable that?
> 
> Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything.  You're taking the word of a known liar.  She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear.  That's juvenile bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I went back at the time and pointed out all the contradictory statements to you.  You couldn't explain them.  So I said just clarify your position, you couldn't do that.
> 
> But hey, you're the guy who hands me my ass by telling me you didn't call me female or a girl when you started referring to me as "she."  LOL.  Oh, and calling me "she" isn't an insult to women.
> 
> You're just a chicken shit coward who wants to make snarky statements and then run away and hide from manning up to explaining your position and then you curse and bluster when you get called on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, if any such thing existed you could quote it.  Once again, you can't, because you're a liar.
> 
> Actually calling you "she" prolly is an insult to women, just as anything I compared a proven liar to would be an insult to that group.  But that's your doing, not mine.  As for you personally, I'm just going by your avatar.  Maybe you're confused about yourself.  See a doctor and ask for a road map.  Maybe look over their shoulder at the chart where it says "gender".  Then again we shouldn't be surprised if you're a male representing himself as a female as some kind of pissant protection -- you lie about everything else, why not that too?
> 
> This incessant yowling every time anyone gives an answer you don't like is tedious.  Now that I embarrassed you in the current thread you run back here as if it's some kind of shelter against reality.  Fact is I've laid out my positions for as long as I've been at this site -- it was the issue that brought me here, that point to make.  And as long as this old thread has been around you've been burying your head in the sand and pretending not to read it, which just makes you look stupid.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> And bring those phantom quotes in so we can all have another laugh.  Pissant.
Click to expand...


Negative rep, thanks!  Bam, you're the bomb.  I can't believe you'd actually tell me I'm getting to you, but then I can't explain the rest of what you either.  Thanks my friend, and positive rep to you for actually telling me how upset you are.

And for the record, I don't believe you're actually lying.  You're just an anal word parser with no sense of your own double standards and hypocrisy.  But wow, you are one angry little boy.

So what about manning up and clarifying your view on guns?  You know, the question I asked and you've dodged for like 50 pages?


----------



## kaz

dannyboys said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling guns to criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya tell that to the criminals who are selling the guns. I'm sure they give a sweet flying fuck what you tell them.
> You idiot LIBs are never going to get it through your heads that there is a demand by inner city Blacks for illegal hand guns. (They aren't sentient enough to work a long gun). That demand is being filled by other criminals.
> The only people buying legal hand guns are Whites who want them for self protection against Blacks mainly.
> Even our maggot filled Trayvon was able to get an illegal hand gun.
> I'll never forget sitting in the back yard of a typical suburban White couple in their early thirties. A cream colored brand new Escalade full of 'young Black men' kept slowly driving down their alley and making obscene comments to the young woman.
> She just smiled and patted the lounge pillow she was sitting on and said under her breath: "Come get some mother fuckers". She had a 9MM tucked under it.
Click to expand...


Funny how the toughest gun laws are in those inner cities and they have the most murders. Yet liberals still can't think of any other solution than making them illegal no matter how much it doesn't work.  Though in fairness on every issue they advocate solutions that already don't work.

CandyCane thinks that if we just tax guns to death we'll get rid of them because sure, criminals may murder people but they draw the line at not paying their taxes and if they can't afford the taxes then the won't buy the gun.  JoeB thinks that if he's arrogant and condescending enough that we'll concede to his superior wisdom that doesn't work for drugs (see the op) will in fact work for guns.

Pogo's the most bizarre, he actually is in favor of honest citizens not having guns because if a criminal has a gun and so do you then it's like putting gasoline on a burning building and it's "called escalation."  He also says when a criminal is robbing you isn't impossible to tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

And after 140+ pages, not one liberal ever actually answered the question.  There is no answer of course, they don't and won't work unless we go to Singapore solutions, and no one is going to do that except probably Joe.


----------



## candycorn

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend:  *Two people* haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.
> 
> Better?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx.  He wrote it with Friedrich Engels.  That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."
> 
> Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book.  That is what we are referring to.
> 
> BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848.  It still wasn't written on a calendar though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
Click to expand...


Nice!  Been there; done that.  

As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...

You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down.  Eventually the availability dries up.

Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx.  He wrote it with Friedrich Engels.  That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."
> 
> Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book.  That is what we are referring to.
> 
> BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848.  It still wasn't written on a calendar though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice!  Been there; done that.
> 
> As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...
> 
> You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down.  Eventually the availability dries up.
> 
> Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.
Click to expand...


And the question you got on "page 3 or whenever" was what difference does it make whether you make guns illegal or tax them or ban them to the op?  The op says if they can't buy legal guns, they will buy them illegally, like kids do drugs.  You haven't addressed the question, all you did was change your proposed enforcement method.  You just keep begging the question and assuming that if you tax to death instead of ban then your method will work.  You also said it's going to take a long, long time and didn't address my question about the people who get murdered in all those decades because they are barred from defending themselves.  You also didn't address my question if someone wants to shoot someone why taxes would be an impediment to them, it's not like they are thinking of saving for their old age at that moment.  You didn't back up your "solution" at all, which is why I keep saying you didn't address the op.   You gave a simplistic answer only, you didn't address it.

BTW, I apologize for calling you "CandyCane."  I didn't mean to be snarky, I remembered it wrong.  I should have remembered because I like candy corn, but I'm not big on candy canes.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx.  He wrote it with Friedrich Engels.  That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."
> 
> Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book.  That is what we are referring to.
> 
> BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848.  It still wasn't written on a calendar though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice!  Been there; done that.
> 
> As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...
> 
> You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down.  Eventually the availability dries up.
> 
> Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.
Click to expand...


Because cigarettes have dried up?!?! 

Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!

Yes folks, she really _is_ this stupid...


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice!  Been there; done that.
> 
> As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...
> 
> You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down.  Eventually the availability dries up.
> 
> Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!
> 
> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
> 
> Yes folks, she really _is_ this stupid...
Click to expand...


She's actually arguing that if we tax guns more and wait long enough then criminals won't be able to get them, and then she's mocking me for saying she didn't answer the question in the op because she thinks she did.

I keep telling her it doesn't address the question in the op because changing the enforcement method from banning to taxing guns doesn't address why they won't just buy illegal guns, like kids buy pot in high school illegally and the government has been able to do nothing about that.


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice!  Been there; done that.
> 
> As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...
> 
> You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down.  Eventually the availability dries up.
> 
> Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!
> 
> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
> 
> Yes folks, she really _is_ this stupid...
Click to expand...


Dealing with Dumbocrats is far worse than trying to deal with small children on important issues. We all know that the black market supplies _anything_ a criminal desires (narcotics, prostitutions, weapons, people for tax evasion and embezzlement, and on and on and on). Yet we have simpleton's like CandyCunt here making juvenile "arguments" acting as if we could actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals when we can't keep cocaine out of the hands of criminals, or heroin out of the hands of criminals, or crack out of the hands of criminals, or marijuana out of the hands of criminals, or meth out of the hands of criminals, or prostitutes out of the hands of criminals, or computer viruses out of the hands of criminals....

In the history of man kind, stopping a criminal from breaking the law has *NEVER* happened. And it *NEVER* will happen. It *cannot* happen. It is _impossible_. Because what makes a criminal a criminal is the fact that they do not abide by the law. So outlawing guns will do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens.

And even Dumbocrats like CandyCunt know it too. But they are so immature and so irrational, they try to lie and make a case that isn't true because it will make them irrationally feel "safer" about their irrational fear of those inanimate objects.


----------



## P@triot

Well isn't this just humiliating for the Dumbocrats and their false narrative? 

Gunman Bursts Into Dollar Store and Threatens to Kill Everyone - Before Police Could Even Respond, He Was Dead


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> Well isn't this just humiliating for the Dumbocrats and their false narrative?
> 
> Gunman Bursts Into Dollar Store and Threatens to Kill Everyone - Before Police Could Even Respond, He Was Dead



This proves what we all knew already - that Dumbocrats refuse to accept personal responsibility for _anything_. And that includes their own security. Rather than be "burdened" with training and arming themselves, they would rather just trample on other people's rights.

This man took personal responsibility for his own security. As a result, a mad man is dead and everyone else in the store is completely unharmed. As always, no guns (Newtwon) equals horrific slaughter, while guns (Alabama) equals everyone safe and mad man gone from society for ever.


----------



## rdean

How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rdean said:


> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?



In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.




And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.


----------



## P@triot

RetiredGySgt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

rdean said:


> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?



Because you people want to "legislate" (ie control) the bejesus out of _everything_. If you're going to legislate something, you damn well better have a plan for it.

The only plan I need is freedom.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
Click to expand...


So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe... 

[ame=http://youtu.be/AdhXSj-DL1A]Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD - 2nd Amendment - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, *if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe*...
Click to expand...



Yeah that is a wacko idea.  Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?



"You guys"?

So -- what, rape is legal on your planet?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys"?
> 
> So -- what, rape is legal on your planet?
Click to expand...


It would seem so. 

Along with stealing cars, breaking into houses, and robbing banks. 

Those darn useless laws


----------



## rdean

RetiredGySgt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
Click to expand...


And more gun deaths.  

Does that even make sense?


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
Click to expand...


News flash!  We already have more guns than any other country, that plan doesn't work.  Wake up.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, *if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that is a wacko idea.  Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?
Click to expand...


You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys"?
> 
> So -- what, rape is legal on your planet?
Click to expand...


HaHaHaHaHaHa! Look at Pogo run from the question when it pins him into the corner! 

No, seriously - rape has been completely and totally outlawed for hundreds of years. So why can't you explain why it is _still_ happening since you believe outlawing something "prevents" it...


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys"?
> 
> So -- what, rape is legal on your planet?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would seem so.
> 
> Along with stealing cars, breaking into houses, and robbing banks.
> 
> Those darn useless laws
Click to expand...


Leave it to CCJ to point out rampant crime while declaring that we need to disarm the American people


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] - can you explain why women get raped? I mean, you guys did outlaw rape hundreds of years ago. So what's going on here? What's the problem? I thought your laws solve all problems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys"?
> 
> So -- what, rape is legal on your planet?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HaHaHaHaHaHa! Look at Pogo run from the question when it pins him into the corner!
> 
> No, seriously - rape has been completely and totally outlawed for hundreds of years. So why can't you explain why it is _still_ happening since you believe outlawing something "prevents" it...
Click to expand...


And where did I say that?


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, *if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that is a wacko idea.  Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )
Click to expand...


-- and where did I say that?









Folks here "heard it here first" a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.

Well, everybody who can read.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that is a wacko idea.  Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here heard it a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> Well, everybody who can read.
Click to expand...


Of course not, you just want the "right" people to be armed.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that is a wacko idea.  Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- and where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here "heard it here first" a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> Well, everybody who can read.
Click to expand...


Post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- and where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here "heard it here first" a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> Well, everybody who can read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
Click to expand...


Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.

That's not the question. 

The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?

I don't have all night...


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- and where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here heard it a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> Well, everybody who can read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, you just want the "right" people to be armed.
Click to expand...


You're thinking of the OP.  I've never opined on who "should" or "shouldn't" be armed.

Where the fuck are you people pulling this shit from?


Oopsie...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- and where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here heard it a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> Well, everybody who can read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, you just want the "right" people to be armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're thinking of the OP.  I've never opined on who "should" or "shouldn't" be armed.
> 
> Where the fuck are you people pulling this shit from?
> 
> 
> Oopsie...
Click to expand...


You deny you oppose loosening laws on concealed carry and open carry? You deny you claimed more firearms are bad? You deny you are for stricter firearm laws?


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, you just want the "right" people to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're thinking of the OP.  I've never opined on who "should" or "shouldn't" be armed.
> 
> Where the fuck are you people pulling this shit from?
> 
> 
> Oopsie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You deny you oppose loosening laws on concealed carry and open carry? You deny you claimed more firearms are bad? You deny you are for stricter firearm laws?
Click to expand...


I've never said a word about "laws" at all -- other than that it's a wrongheaded approach.

See, the way to do this is go find your evidence FIRST, so you don't look like a dickhead.  _Now_ look where you are.
No Doodles -- laws don't determine everything.  Not even close.

With Buttsoiler, I expect that sort of thing because he really is that stupid.  I guess he's still flailing around looking for his own assumption, the realization starting to kick in that he dug himself into a hole.  He'll prolly just run away now.


----------



## Zona

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Whats your plan?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Zona said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your plan?
Click to expand...


as to gangs I have a simple plan. Suspend the law for a week and allow the army to clean out all known gangs.

As to stopping criminals from getting firearms? Probably will never happen. But if we allow as many people as possible to arm themselves and to carry concealed or open crime rates will drop on their own.


----------



## blackhawk

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Since the vast majority of criminals don't acquire their guns legally you can't.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- and where did I say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks here "heard it here first" a year ago when I got here.  I've never said people need to be disarmed.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> Well, everybody who can read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
> 
> I don't have all night...
Click to expand...


Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...

No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
> 
> I don't have all night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
Click to expand...


SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.

There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".

There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".

There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.

There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it.  On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.

Congratulations.  You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted.  For all the world to see.  

Dumb shit.


----------



## P@triot

Zona said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your plan?
Click to expand...


I have a simple plan which is effective _every_ time Zona: freedom. My plan is clearly outlined in the Constitution. If that document is too "dry" for you, here is a a real world, Hollywood version for you that happened this week (see how effective the Constitutional plan is? )

Gunman Bursts Into Dollar Store and Threatens to Kill Everyone - Before Police Could Even Respond, He Was Dead


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
> 
> I don't have all night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
> 
> There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it.  On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
> 
> Congratulations.  You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted.  For all the world to see.
> 
> Dumb shit.
Click to expand...


Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say... 

Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you _did_ say. Gee, I wonder why _that_ is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun *problem*" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
> 
> I don't have all night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared *"the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline"*. You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
Click to expand...


Youve got to be kidding  only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
> 
> I don't have all night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared *"the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline"*. You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youve got to be kidding  only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
Click to expand...


And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it _does_ mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared *"the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline"*. You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You&#8217;ve got to be kidding &#8211; only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating &#8216;disarming people.&#8217;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it _does_ mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
Click to expand...


It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.

As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.


----------



## Pogo

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
> 
> There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it.  On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
> 
> Congratulations.  You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted.  For all the world to see.
> 
> Dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...
> 
> Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you _did_ say. Gee, I wonder why _that_ is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun *problem*" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".
Click to expand...


What I said is right there in the post, shit-for-brains.  You don't get to inject your own content.


----------



## OKTexas

You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.


----------



## jon_berzerk

OKTexas said:


> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.



the first two terms in prison should lengthy ones to begin with 

i was watching a show this afternoon 

this kid shot and killed his mom and dad 

he was sentenced to a minimum of 5 to 10 years 

so really anything after 5 years


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youve got to be kidding  only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it _does_ mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
Click to expand...


Its more than just the inability to read  its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.


----------



## Pogo

OKTexas said:


> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.



Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.

"Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.


----------



## Pogo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it _does_ mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its more than just the inability to read  its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
Click to expand...


It's his simplistic mind that sees what it wants to see and lacks the creativity to fathom that there may be some interpretation he has yet to think of.  And it's old.


----------



## OKTexas

jon_berzerk said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the first two terms in prison should lengthy ones to begin with
> 
> i was watching a show this afternoon
> 
> this kid shot and killed his mom and dad
> 
> he was sentenced to a minimum of 5 to 10 years
> 
> so really anything after 5 years
Click to expand...


I guess I should have elaborated more, the intentional taking of another life counts as 3 with a streamlined automatic appeals process taking no more than ninety days if it's the first offense.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.


----------



## Wildman

rdean said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And more gun deaths.  *
> 
> Does that even make sense?
Click to expand...


hummmmm !! gun deaths ??

i have several guns over 100 years old and they are as healthy as the day my dead relatives bought them, they are nowhere near dying, they are as true as the day they were made, they have a little rust and patina, but they also are very beautiful..., remember.., guns only have two enemies, *RUST* and *LIBERALS* !!


----------



## Wildman

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youve got to be kidding  only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it _does_ mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger *squeezing blackheads* purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
Click to expand...


*"squeezing blackheads"*.., when someone brings up shit like this out of nowhere, i envision *THAT* person is actually *THE one* who doing the deed.., right there Pojo???

i'll bet your face looks like a well worn WWI battlefield.   ...  ...   ...  ...  ...  ...   ...


----------



## KGB

Pogo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
Click to expand...


Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices:  get rid of it or defend against it.  Gun grabbing does neither.


----------



## kaz

Zona said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your plan?
Click to expand...


My plan is to eliminate gun laws and allow people to defend themselves.  When criminals don't know who is armed, gun murders plummet.  The places with the most gun laws have the most gun deaths and vice versa.  It's not a coincidence.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?



This argument is DOA.  It's your side who is arguing that violating the Constitution and restricting guns will reduce crime.  Our plan is to follow the Constitution and eliminate gun restrictions.  The onus is on you, Homey.  If you present a plan, it's your job to prove it will work.  And in fact it's been proven it doesn't.  Read the op.

This is always a charming tactic of the left.  Not having government control anything isn't a plan to you.  If we want to eliminate Obamacare, we need another socialist medical plan.  If we want to eliminate the current gun regulations, we have to propose new gun regulations.

No, the answer is free markets and freedom.  That is not only a plan, it's the only plan that works because government is inherently corrupt and politicians are power hungry.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
> 
> There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it.  On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
> 
> Congratulations.  You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted.  For all the world to see.
> 
> Dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...
> 
> Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you _did_ say. Gee, I wonder why _that_ is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun *problem*" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is right there in the post, shit-for-brains.  You don't get to inject your own content.
Click to expand...


I rest my case folks!

Game. Set. Match.

You said what you said. run from it all you want junior - it's there in black & white.

Love making pogo my _personal_ bitch on USMB...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.



The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.

So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more gun deaths.
> 
> Does that even make sense?
Click to expand...


You make it sound like shooting criminals committing crimes with guns is bad....


----------



## P@triot

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices:  get rid of it or defend against it.  Gun grabbing does neither.
Click to expand...


   

(Now this is the part where pogo goes all unhinged calls it a gun *problem*, but then denies he's against disarming the people even though he's wailed against guns and called them a "problem" )


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then naturally you believe the Secret Service should immediately disarm, right? I mean, if guns are dangerous, than the president is in mortal danger as we speak. Furthermore, *if outlawing guns makes the world safe, then all we need to do is outlaw guns and the president will be permanently and forever safe*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that is a wacko idea.  Maybe it belongs standing out in the cornfield scaring crows where you got it, ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard it here *first* folks - [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] openly admitting that disarming people is a "wacko" idea (and that was after he declared that people need to be disarmed )
Click to expand...


But he's not arguing for gun laws.  Sure he's not...


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its more than just the inability to read  its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's his simplistic mind that sees what it wants to see and lacks the creativity to fathom that there may be some interpretation he has yet to think of.  And it's old.
Click to expand...


In other words - someone is desperate to run away from their previous statements. 

If I'm wrong about your very clear black & white statements, then give us your new "interpretation" of it. I've asked you 3 times now and you're too afraid to answer. You keep running further and further.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I remember that.  I've used that line multiple times on this site.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
> 
> I don't have all night...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared *"the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline"*. You seriously can't remember what you said only _two_ posts ago? Really? Good grief...
> 
> No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Youve got to be kidding  only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
Click to expand...


An "idiot" is someone who thinks that someone arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws is for gun laws.  Got it.

I haven't read that stupid an argument since pogo called me a liar for saying he's calling me a female when he kept referring to me as "she."

So pogo, what if you clarify your view on gun laws and stop dancing and word parsing.


----------



## kaz

OKTexas said:


> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.



To clarify, are you saying we should restrict guns and do this or are you saying we should do this but still not restrict guns?


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it _does_ mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its more than just the inability to read  its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
Click to expand...


It's also that people keep asking him if by arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws if he'll address the op and clarify what he is saying regarding the point of the thread he's posting in and he won't do it.

If a Republican were playing this game, you'd be all over them.  And no Republican would be doing what you are doing and defending it, they'd be saying to answer the question and address the op in the thread they are posting in.  Leftists are collectivists, you hold Republicans to an unmeetable standard and your own to no standard.  Republicans have other issues, but they are not collectivists.  At least not in government.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
Click to expand...


Actually the increase in prison populations over the last couple decades is highly correlated with the reduction in crime.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its more than just the inability to read  its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's his simplistic mind that sees what it wants to see and lacks the creativity to fathom that there may be some interpretation he has yet to think of.  And it's old.
Click to expand...


So if you're not for guns ("it's like adding gasoline to a fire) and you're not against guns, what are you _for_? You're literally sitting there cross-dressing and "pinching your blackheads" in a tizzy about your life and lack of attention. So you just want to join the conversation even though you don't understand the issue and deny having a plan or a stance on the issue. You're little thong is chaffing you and you're just in a tizzy.

Either state what you meant (which you're too afraid because you know I'll just keep exposing your ignorance and continue to make you my personal bitch on USMB) or go away troll. As usual, you're adding _nothing_ of value either way to this thread (but you sure as hell are all jacked up). It's more of the same - pogo pissing and moaning about everyone. No wonder your life is so miserable and you can't hold a job.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
> 
> There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it.  On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
> 
> Congratulations.  You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted.  For all the world to see.
> 
> Dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...
> 
> Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you _did_ say. Gee, I wonder why _that_ is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun *problem*" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is right there in the post, shit-for-brains.  You don't get to inject your own content.
Click to expand...


So to summarize - you don't know what you meant and you don't know how you feel about this issue. You just want some attention. Ok. Got it.


----------



## P@triot

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  *Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline*.  *What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem*?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  *Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion*.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
Click to expand...


Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.

I love when pogo denies what he said even though what he said is posted for everyone to see... (this kid is in more desperate need of mental health meds than any unhinged libtard I have seen on USMB).


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan is to eliminate gun laws and allow people to defend themselves.  When criminals don't know who is armed, gun murders plummet.  The places with the most gun laws have the most gun deaths and vice versa.  It's not a coincidence.
Click to expand...


Florida is revamping the syg law clarifying to include immunity for brandishing a firearm 

in self defense


----------



## jon_berzerk

OKTexas said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the first two terms in prison should lengthy ones to begin with
> 
> i was watching a show this afternoon
> 
> this kid shot and killed his mom and dad
> 
> he was sentenced to a minimum of 5 to 10 years
> 
> so really anything after 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I should have elaborated more, the intentional taking of another life counts as 3 with a streamlined automatic appeals process taking no more than ninety days if it's the first offense.
Click to expand...


yup


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rottweiler said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  *Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline*.  *What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem*?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  *Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion*.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.
> 
> I love when pogo denies what he said even though what he said is posted for everyone to see... (this kid is in more desperate need of mental health meds than any unhinged libtard I have seen on USMB).
Click to expand...


from his posts it is quite obvious 

that he wants to get rid of guns


----------



## hunarcy

Rottweiler said:


> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.



It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.


----------



## Bumberclyde

hunarcy said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.
Click to expand...


You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.


----------



## hangover

> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?


The only way is to declare the NRA a terrorist organization. When that happens, gun owners won't be flaunting their guns.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.
> 
> So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?
Click to expand...


Gun fanatics don't seem to realize that the criminals are using legally purchased guns that end up on the black market because of the NRA and super lax gun laws. Strengthening gun laws would be to close the easy loopholes so that in fact, criminals would have a harder time getting guns.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.
> 
> So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fanatics don't seem to realize that the criminals are using legally purchased guns that end up on the black market because of the NRA and super lax gun laws. Strengthening gun laws would be to close the easy loopholes so that in fact, criminals would have a harder time getting guns.
Click to expand...



unless we can think of a way to decrease the motivation to commit violent crime 

 the black market for firearms will never be defeated


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to guns in the hands of criminals is guns in the hands of the honest citizens they prey on, you betcha.
> 
> So what is your proposal to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens so we can have this superior state you advocate where only criminals are armed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun fanatics don't seem to realize that the criminals are using legally purchased guns that end up on the black market because of the NRA and super lax gun laws. Strengthening gun laws would be to close the easy loopholes so that in fact, criminals would have a harder time getting guns.
Click to expand...


Please read the op and address the point.  You're begging the question.  You're stating that gun laws would work, the op asks why they would work when any kid can get all the pot they want and pot is illegal.  So how are gun laws going to keep guns away from criminals?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.
Click to expand...


Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws.  Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law."  He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."  

Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean.  Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws.  Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law."  He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."
> 
> Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean.  Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?
Click to expand...


Look at it this way, cousin It:  When you post fabrications and attribute them to me, I *WILL* correct the record.  You can take that to the bank.
If that sucks, well it's too damn bad.  Don't make shit up in the first place and you won't have that problem.

I mean ------- *duh.*


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws.  Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law."  He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."
> 
> Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean.  Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at it this way, cousin It:  When you post fabrications and attribute them to me, I *WILL* correct the record.  You can take that to the bank.
> If that sucks, well it's too damn bad.  Don't make shit up in the first place and you won't have that problem.
> 
> I mean ------- *duh.*
Click to expand...


So when you started referring to me as "she" and I said you were calling me female and you called me a "liar" you were just correcting the record.  When you go into a thread about gun laws and argue with everyone who opposes gun laws that more guns is bad and we say you're for gun laws, you're just correcting the record.  It depends what the definition of "it" is, doesn't it, Slick?  BTW, Clinton wasn't parsing words, he was ... lying.  And so are you.

BTW, it's Cousin Itt, not Cousin It.


----------



## Pogo

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices:  get rid of it or defend against it.  Gun grabbing does neither.
Click to expand...


I agree.  That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site.  And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.

Where we differ is on the concept of "evil".  You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".

I submit that way of looking at the world is complete bullshit.  There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it.  That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion.  And I see an opportunity to connect this thought in the next post...


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And more gun deaths.
> 
> Does that even make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it sound like shooting criminals committing crimes with guns is bad....
Click to expand...


You make it sound like shooting _anyone_ is good...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices:  get rid of it or defend against it.  Gun grabbing does neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site.  And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.
> 
> Where we differ is on the concept of "evil".  You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".
> 
> I submit that's bullshit.  There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it.  That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion.  I'll connect this in the next post.
Click to expand...


"Them" are the criminals who are going to buy guns regardless of the law.  "Us" are the ones who won't break the law who you get murdered when you make guns illegal.  So "Us" would be for example all the people who owned guns and didn't have them in the Washington Navy Yard because they followed the law.  "Them" would be the shooter who ignored that it was illegal to have a gun at the Washington Navy Yard.  Glad I could clear that up for you.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more gun deaths.
> 
> Does that even make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound like shooting criminals committing crimes with guns is bad....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it sound like shooting _anyone_ is good...
Click to expand...


Yes, shooting criminals with guns is good.  I thought I was clear about that the first time.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan is to eliminate gun laws and allow people to defend themselves.  When criminals don't know who is armed, gun murders plummet.  The places with the most gun laws have the most gun deaths and vice versa.  It's not a coincidence.
Click to expand...


In other words your plan is anarchy, chaos and the law of the jungle.  Might makes right.  Testosterone über alles.  Please.  You live in a comic book.

That's why I don't bother to go into complexities with the likes of you and Buttsoiler.  You don't have the intellectual capacity to handle it.  So you make up your own shit, which I then have to shoot down and embarrass you by challenging you to post what you think I said, and then you come up empty.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices:  get rid of it or defend against it.  Gun grabbing does neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site
Click to expand...


What you have not said is how we actually accomplish getting guns out of the hands of the criminals.  You know, the question I asked in the op...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

hunarcy said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.
Click to expand...


Then youre as much an idiot as the other idiot.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My plan is to eliminate gun laws and allow people to defend themselves.  When criminals don't know who is armed, gun murders plummet.  The places with the most gun laws have the most gun deaths and vice versa.  It's not a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words your plan is anarchy, chaos and the law of the jungle.  Might makes right.  Testosterone über alles.  Please.  You live in a comic book.
> 
> That's why I don't bother to go into complexities with the likes of you and Buttsoiler.  You don't have the intellectual capacity to handle it.  So you make up your own shit, which I then have to shoot down and embarrass you by challenging you to post what you think I said, and then you come up empty.
Click to expand...


So the police removing your ability to defend yourself is what protects us from anarchy.  LOL.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post.  Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read?  You're obviously not qualified here.  I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read.  That's how it is.
> 
> As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass.  And there you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s more than just the inability to read &#8211; it&#8217;s also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to &#8216;disarm people.&#8217; The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also that people keep asking him if by arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws if he'll address the op and clarify what he is saying regarding the point of the thread he's posting in and he won't do it.
> 
> If a Republican were playing this game, you'd be all over them.  And no Republican would be doing what you are doing and defending it, they'd be saying to answer the question and address the op in the thread they are posting in.  Leftists are collectivists, you hold Republicans to an unmeetable standard and your own to no standard.  Republicans have other issues, but they are not collectivists.  At least not in government.
Click to expand...


When did this become a thread about gun _laws_?

Title: *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

There's no reference there to "laws".

Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its more than just the inability to read  its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also that people keep asking him if by arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws if he'll address the op and clarify what he is saying regarding the point of the thread he's posting in and he won't do it.
> 
> If a Republican were playing this game, you'd be all over them.  And no Republican would be doing what you are doing and defending it, they'd be saying to answer the question and address the op in the thread they are posting in.  Leftists are collectivists, you hold Republicans to an unmeetable standard and your own to no standard.  Republicans have other issues, but they are not collectivists.  At least not in government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did this become a thread about gun _laws_?
> 
> Title: *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> There's no reference there to "laws".
> 
> Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?
Click to expand...


LOL, the op:



kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, now that admit evil exists in the world there are only two choices:  get rid of it or defend against it.  Gun grabbing does neither.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site.  And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.
> 
> Where we differ is on the concept of "evil".  You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".
> 
> I submit that's bullshit.  There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it.  That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion.  I'll connect this in the next post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Them" are the criminals who are going to buy guns regardless of the law.  "Us" are the ones who won't break the law who you get murdered when you make guns illegal.  So "Us" would be for example all the people who owned guns and didn't have them in the Washington Navy Yard because they followed the law.  "Them" would be the shooter who ignored that it was illegal to have a gun at the Washington Navy Yard.  Glad I could clear that up for you.
Click to expand...


And as long as you slavishly lock yourself into that childish box you will never grok anything I'm saying.  I won't bother with you further until you figure a way out of it and get past post 2224.  Maybe when you're older.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also that people keep asking him if by arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws if he'll address the op and clarify what he is saying regarding the point of the thread he's posting in and he won't do it.
> 
> If a Republican were playing this game, you'd be all over them.  And no Republican would be doing what you are doing and defending it, they'd be saying to answer the question and address the op in the thread they are posting in.  Leftists are collectivists, you hold Republicans to an unmeetable standard and your own to no standard.  Republicans have other issues, but they are not collectivists.  At least not in government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did this become a thread about gun _laws_?
> 
> Title: *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> There's no reference there to "laws".
> 
> Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, the op:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


None of that applies to me; I've never said we need more gun laws.  Again, the title says nothing about "laws".  It didn't five seconds ago and it still doesn't now.  Duh.
Apprently you think all you have to do is post a false premise and it magically takes life.  Let me know when you grow up.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's what I've been saying as long as I've been on this site.  And dèjá vu, we've done this before, I believe it was this same poster -- somewhere.
> 
> Where we differ is on the concept of "evil".  You and OKTex speak as if it's a separate kind of life form that isn't part of "us" -- this point hanging on the premise that there is and "us" and a "them".
> 
> I submit that's bullshit.  There is always a piece of "them" in the "us", and the more one considers oneself one of the "us", the less one can see it.  That's exactly why I'm against that dichotomy; it blinds us with a false illusion.  I'll connect this in the next post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Them" are the criminals who are going to buy guns regardless of the law.  "Us" are the ones who won't break the law who you get murdered when you make guns illegal.  So "Us" would be for example all the people who owned guns and didn't have them in the Washington Navy Yard because they followed the law.  "Them" would be the shooter who ignored that it was illegal to have a gun at the Washington Navy Yard.  Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as long as you slavishly lock yourself into that childish box you will never grok anything I'm saying.  I won't bother with you further until you figure a way out of it and get past post 2224.  Maybe when you're older.
Click to expand...


I am locking myself into separating honest citizens who follow the law from criminals who don't.

For once in your life you are right about something, I do separate honest citizens from criminals.  I'd ask why that's bad, but there is nothing you can say that would convince me I should equate them, so I won't ask.

I would like you to address the op though.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did this become a thread about gun _laws_?
> 
> Title: *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> There's no reference there to "laws".
> 
> Or are you too dim to see that in your own title?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, the op:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that applies to me; I've never said we need more gun laws.  Again, the title says nothing about "laws".  It didn't five seconds ago and it still doesn't now.  Duh.
Click to expand...


I am the original poster, the title is a summary.  The first post states what the discussion is about.  Notice if you mouse over thread titles, the first post pops up. That is so with the title and the first post, you know what the thread is about.  Seriously, how do you not know that?


----------



## Howey

Easy...

1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.

2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.

3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.

4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.

Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.


----------



## Pogo

jon_berzerk said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  *Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline*.  *What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem*?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  *Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion*.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.
> 
> I love when pogo denies what he said even though what he said is posted for everyone to see... (this kid is in more desperate need of mental health meds than any unhinged libtard I have seen on USMB).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from his posts it is quite obvious
> 
> that he wants to get rid of guns
Click to expand...


What he wants to get rid of is gun *fetishism*.   Which is what drives a ridiculous statement like 'the answer to guns is MORE guns'.  He wants to shine the _*mentality*_.

And you don't do that with laws.  And that's the part that sails over the heads of the Buttsoilers and Kazmats, those intellectual giants who find themselves unable to think beyond the simplistic.

_Laws_ are irrelevant distraction.  We didn't get where we are out of laws, nor will they take us out.  And this is why I don't bother commenting on law; it's not a legislative problem; it's a _cultural _problem.


----------



## kaz

NTG said:


> Easy...
> 
> 1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.
> 
> 2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.
> 
> 3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.
> 
> 4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.
> 
> Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.



I have conceded that Singapore style enforcement of laws would work.  However, that's not going to happen.  You're going from our current solution, which is similar to drugs, which is supported by the left, and you're going to a solution that no one supports.  I am not arguing you didn't address the op, you did.  But it doesn't end the discussion for that reason.  No one supports it.


----------



## Pogo

Bumberclyde said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man - this is a very clear rant. Could not be more clear that guns are a "problem" in his mind and that he wants to disarm the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.
Click to expand...


That's _exactly _what was going on.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> What he wants to get rid of is gun *fetishism*.   Which is what drives a ridiculous statement like 'the answer to guns is MORE guns'.  He wants to shine the _*mentality*_.
> 
> And you don't do that with laws.  And that's the part that sails over the heads of the Buttsoilers and Kazmats, those intellectual giants who find themselves unable to think beyond the simplistic.
> 
> _Laws_ are irrelevant distraction.  We didn't get where we are out of laws, nor will they take us out.



So that's finally an answer to the op.  I won't say you didn't answer it again.  I don't get what you think you got out of not answering it for so long.  If no one knows what you are arguing, you can be sure that you're not having any effect on their thinking.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
Click to expand...


Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...

When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.

In this case, the answer _is_ "more guns."


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> NTG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy...
> 
> 1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.
> 
> 2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.
> 
> 3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.
> 
> 4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.
> 
> Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have conceded that Singapore style enforcement of laws would work.  However, that's not going to happen.  You're going from our current solution, which is similar to drugs, which is supported by the left, and you're going to a solution that no one supports.  I am not arguing you didn't address the op, you did.  But it doesn't end the discussion for that reason.  *No one supports it.*
Click to expand...

I do.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NTG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy...
> 
> 1. Strict registration of all guns and stricter regulation of laws.
> 
> 2. Mandatory felony and 3-5 years in prison for anyone who leaves a gun available for theft.
> 
> 3. Mandatory 10-25 years in prison for anyone selling, bartering, or giving a gun away without a background check and registration. Ban all gun shows.
> 
> 4. Mandatory felony life in prison for criminals using a gun, stolen or not, in a crime.
> 
> Eventually, guns will disappear from the hands of criminals who use them to commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have conceded that Singapore style enforcement of laws would work.  However, that's not going to happen.  You're going from our current solution, which is similar to drugs, which is supported by the left, and you're going to a solution that no one supports.  I am not arguing you didn't address the op, you did.  But it doesn't end the discussion for that reason.  *No one supports it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do.
Click to expand...


That's obviously not what I meant.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...
> 
> When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.
> 
> In this case, the answer _is_ "more guns."
Click to expand...


I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.

As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... _more guns_!  Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline.  What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem?  Genius I tell ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And right back to clueless square one.  Never fails.  Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion.  Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...
> 
> When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.
> 
> In this case, the answer _is_ "more guns."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.
> 
> As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.
Click to expand...


Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;

2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;

3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;

4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;

5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.
> 
> As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.



Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws.  Which you agreed with.  And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago.  You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
Click to expand...


That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've been reading over some of your responses to kaz, and I was just wondering, Pogo...
> 
> When or if you take away the guns, wouldn't you be causing more criminality? I mean, when you outlaw something, it automatically becomes criminal. Just look at the sale of marijuana. Wouldn't it be fair reasoning to say that by outlawing something you create more criminals? By rendering guns as contraband, you invite people to buy and sell them on a black market, you've only made a bad problem worse. Not only do you have the murderer as a criminal, you have an innocent gun owner right alongside, a criminal just like the murderer.
> 
> In this case, the answer _is_ "more guns."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.
> 
> As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.
Click to expand...


Is it?

Why?  How are they at all related?
And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights".  I'm talking about gun _fetishism_.  Again, two things that are not related.  You don't need one to have the other.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.
> 
> As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws.  Which you agreed with.  And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago.  You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...
Click to expand...


"I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with".  Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
Click to expand...


Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.
> 
> As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Why?  How are they at all related?
> And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights".  I'm talking about gun _fetishism_.  Again, two things that are not related.  You don't need one to have the other.
Click to expand...


Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.


----------



## Pogo

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, *how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities*?
Click to expand...


Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo, it's misleading to say "I'm not for gun laws" but then refer to gun rights folks as "gun fetishists" in the same breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Why?  How are they at all related?
> And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights".  I'm talking about gun _fetishism_.  Again, two things that are not related.  You don't need one to have the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.
Click to expand...


OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.

You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
See where I am?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
Click to expand...


Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...



With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Why?  How are they at all related?
> And let's clarify, again I'm not talking about gun "rights".  I'm talking about gun _fetishism_.  Again, two things that are not related.  You don't need one to have the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.
> 
> You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
> See where I am?
Click to expand...


You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo. 

Your terminology is giving your position away.


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that it's just that he wants to disarm the American people and uses whatever excuse is convenient at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just think he wants to disarm everyone because you have no proper comeback, so you reach for a simplistic strawman argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo argued against guns in a thread about gun laws.  Then he's saying that he didn't use the word "law."  He also called me a liar BTW because I said he called me female because he started calling me "she."
> 
> Even if you consider it a strawman to think that someone arguing against guns in a threat about gun laws is arguing for gun laws, he's been repeatedly asked to clarify what he does mean.  Do you not think that he should man up and answer the question in the op if he's going to argue with people about it in the thread?
Click to expand...


He's arguing simply for attention. Cross-dressing in an empty apartment is no longer satisfying for him. He's in a tizzy, lonely, desperate, and just looking for interaction. If that means he has to be a troll and argue for both A and B then he'll argue for both A and B while denying both.

There is not one rational person here who disagrees - his rant was overwhelming "disarm the American people". He repeatedly referred to guns as a "problem", called more guns "like throwing gasoline on a fire" (and who thinks _that_ is a good thing?!?!), and then finished by slamming guns and religion.

But.....he's "pro-gun" everyone. Well, so long as you'll keep giving him attention since his Victoria's Secret thong is no longer thrilling him like it used to. Just put him on ignore and move on. No sense in arguing with someone who literally argues with themselves and denies what they say from what post to the next.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
Click to expand...

Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
Click to expand...


Well, honest citizens wouldn't *lie* 24x7 like Dumbocrats do on tv, in the newspaper, and on the internet such as here on USMB. 

So by your idiot "logic" Wry, should all Americans lose their 1st Amendment Rights?


----------



## OKTexas

Bumberclyde said:


> Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.



Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.
Click to expand...


Pity the ignorance of you CCJ and your Dumbocrat brethren who believe you can build a crime-free utopia by banning firearms. As I've stated already, and you've been too big of a disingenuous pussy to address, murder and rape have been outlawed since the beginning of time - and yet both happen every minute of every day somewhere in the U.S. How do you explain that since you've already "banned" both, asshat?


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens&#8217; civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.
Click to expand...


And everything you just mentioned is a non sequitur. You use the same reasoning with gun owners and gun rights, so that makes you a hypocrite; just as inconsistent as you claim other people to be.


----------



## P@triot

OKTexas said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
Click to expand...


Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.

Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.
> 
> You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
> See where I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. 

Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of gun rights extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow trumps the First, allowing a minority of the population to take up arms against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be tyrannical. 

Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any gun grabber, because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.
> 
> You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
> See where I am?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of gun rights extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow trumps the First, allowing a minority of the population to take up arms against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be tyrannical.
> 
> Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any gun grabber, because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.
Click to expand...


Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said anything about "taking away" any guns, TK.  That is only Kaz' strawman. It's not mine.  Kaz refuses to acknowledge whenever I post it but I've been saying since well before you came to this site that if God Herself came down from the heavens and declared, "that's it, nobody makes any more guns, ever", we'd still be drowning in them, especially the legendary "evildoers".  So trying to control the flow of arms is something I've always seen as pointless.  Again, as I also keep saying, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, and the disease is cultural.  It's fetishism.  The mentality of Life through Death/Might makes Right.
> 
> As long as that is the mentality, we are doomed to its consequences.  Doesn't matter what the laws are.  Wouldn't even matter if there were no laws at all as in Kaz' anarchy comic book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws.  Which you agreed with.  And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago.  You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with".  Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.
Click to expand...


I got no answer until a few posts ago.  Note when you did finally state it, I jumped in and acknowledged it.  This makes no sense.  And seriously with the name calling, are you eight?  Or you're just emotionally eight?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
Click to expand...


So criminals would buy guns that were stolen and if you get rid of those they would import them.  Guns are low technology, easy to build.  And note that your ilk insist people can walk unabated across our borders, it's easy to smuggle in the same way.  Like they do with drugs...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TemplarKormac said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of gun rights extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow trumps the First, allowing a minority of the population to take up arms against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be tyrannical.
> 
> Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any gun grabber, because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.
Click to expand...


You are, however, consistent in making no sense, the above being a typical example.


----------



## OKTexas

Pogo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
Click to expand...


Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, *how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.
Click to expand...


So in your view, are the criminals equivalent to the Cowboys or the Indians?

Honest citizens are good, criminals are bad.  Since neither cowboys nor Indians were all good or all bad, you presented your own false dichotomy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of gun rights extremists, with their moronic, errant notion that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not subject to reasonable restrictions, or that the Second Amendment somehow trumps the First, allowing a minority of the population to take up arms against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be tyrannical.
> 
> Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any gun grabber, because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are, however, consistent in making no sense, the above being a typical example.
Click to expand...


A-ha!

And ad hominem signals the end of your premise. Have a seat Clayton. If you were so worried about equal protection under the law, you would be passing laws protecting, not eliminating, the rights of law abiding gun owners. But oh hey, whatever floats your political boat, mister.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rottweiler said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
Click to expand...


And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most gun rights extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.


----------



## TemplarKormac

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, *how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your view, are the criminals equivalent to the Cowboys or the Indians?
> 
> Honest citizens are good, criminals are bad.  Since neither cowboys nor Indians were all good or all bad, you presented your own false dichotomy.
Click to expand...


Bingo.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens&#8217; civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.
Click to expand...


Equal protection:  Gays have equal protection, they can marry the same people that they would be able to marry if they were straight.

Privacy:  It is you who has bastardized the Constitution.  Privacy is primarily protected by the 10th amendment, but you have eliminated that, so you have gone back and added another privacy protection that isn't there to fix the problem you created when you ignored the constitution.

Voting:  There is no right to vote in the Constitution, sorry Homey.


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most gun rights extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...


Uh, what? 

That is a classic Post hoc argument, Clayton.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is against gun control has blood on their hands from Sandy Hook and all the others. Countries with less guns have less gun violence, it's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
Click to expand...

Fuck, are you stupid.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.
Click to expand...


Absent due process, of course.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck, are you stupid.
Click to expand...


Gun laws prevent people from protecting themselves, and they do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens.  Why do shooters go to the Washington Navy yard parking lot, campuses, movie theaters, schools, malls?  They know there are no guns there.  They do it on purpose.  Think about it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.

"By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."

Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most gun rights extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...


Pointing out that gun free zones are the preferred hunting grounds of the criminally insane hurts second amendment rights? In who's delusional world would that be? Ohh ya yours.


----------



## hazlnut

A national database accessible by all law enforcement.

Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip -- you sell it, the new owner has to pass a background check.

Every gun recovered at a crime should be traceable back to an owner.


Once we identity who is selling guns or moving guns into the black market, then we arrest them.

The black market dries up, it becomes harder from criminals to get guns, the price of black market guns goes way up.

Of course, paranoid gun nutters think there's going to be a gun 'grab' and they fight any national gun database like maniacs.

There is a small but loud sector of gun ownership that is definitely a cult.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

hazlnut said:


> A national database accessible by all law enforcement.
> 
> Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip -- you sell it, the new owner has to pass a background check.
> 
> Every gun recovered at a crime should be traceable back to an owner.
> 
> 
> Once we identity who is selling guns or moving guns into the black market, then we arrest them.
> 
> The black market dries up, it becomes harder from criminals to get guns, the price of black market guns goes way up.
> 
> Of course, paranoid gun nutters think there's going to be a gun 'grab' and they fight any national gun database like maniacs.
> 
> There is a small but loud sector of gun ownership that is definitely a cult.



Ya cause guns coming over the border are going to be registered. And Guns stolen will not help you trace shit.

The reality is that EVERY registration has lead to confiscation, INCLUDING here, just check out New York for proof.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TemplarKormac said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you sir, for reaffirming your hypocrisy on the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are, however, consistent in making no sense, the above being a typical example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A-ha!
> 
> And ad hominem signals the end of your premise. Have a seat Clayton. If you were so worried about equal protection under the law, you would be passing laws protecting, not eliminating, the rights of law abiding gun owners. But oh hey, whatever floats your political boat, mister.
Click to expand...


You truly are skilled at making no sense, and your ignorance is indeed comprehensive. 

Lets make this as simple as possible so you might understand. 

In order for the government to place restrictions on a citizens rights, those restrictions must be rationally based, be supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a legitimate legislative end. 

So far so good? 

Now, as weve seen in both Utah and Oklahoma, laws violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples were invalidated by Federal courts because they lacked a rational basis, lacked objective, documented evidence in support, and failed to pursue a legitimate legislative end.

You and others on the right denounced these rulings. 

Here is where the hypocrisy and inconsistency of you and many others on the right comes into play: 

New York recently enacted a ban on assault weapons. As with the measures in Utah and Oklahoma disallowing same-sex couples to marry, the New York law likewise lacks a rational basis, lacks objective, documented evidence in support, and fails to pursue a legitimate legislative end. The New York will likely be found un-Constitutional accordingly. 

See how that works? 

Whatever the right the states seeks to deny  the right to marry, the right to privacy, the right to vote, or the right to own a gun  those restrictions must be rationally based, be supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a legitimate legislative end. 

Consequently, in order for you and most others on the right to be consistent in your opposition to laws placing restrictions on access to firearms, you must also oppose laws denying same-sex couples to marry, oppose laws banning abortion, and oppose laws requiring an ID to vote  because restrictions on these rights are not rationally, objectivity justified, theyre motivated by subjective, unwarranted disapproval, be that disapproval of guns or same sex couples, it makes no difference constitutionally.  

Last, when you find the passage in the _Heller_ ruling where Justice Scalia explains that the Second Amendment right is unlimited and not subject to government restrictions, get back to us.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you're mincing words. You have a conspicuously negative attitude towards gun rights folks, which implies to me that you might favor gun control more than you realize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.
> 
> You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
> See where I am?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
Click to expand...


NO, it is not "reasonable and logical"; it is elective.  You're injecting your own content.  I'll ask you for the third time: how are _rights_ and _interests_ related?

How do you need a law to have an _interest_ in a video game or a Corvette?  In what way is that interest obliterated if Corvettes become illegal?  

And where have I posted anything about "rights"?

You're verging here on doing the same thing Cousin It did-- plugging in what you wish I'd said instead of dealing with what I actually did say.  It stumps me why some of y'all just can't bear to face the issue and insist on putting up these "law" strawmen.  Again I say - laws didn't get us to where we are, and laws ain't gonna get us out.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.
> 
> You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
> See where I am?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it is not "reasonable and logical"; it is elective.  You're injecting your own content.  I'll ask you for the third time: how are _rights_ and _interests_ related?
> 
> How do you need a law to have an _interest_ in a video game or a Corvette?  In what way is that interest obliterated if Corvettes become illegal?
> 
> And where have I posted anything about "rights"?
> 
> You're verging here on doing the same thing Cousin It did-- plugging in what you wish I'd said instead of dealing with what I actually did say.  It stumps me why some of y'all just can't bear to face the issue and insist on putting up these "law" strawmen.  Again I say - laws didn't get us to where we are, and laws ain't gonna get us out.
Click to expand...


Rights and interests are always related. When someone nails your position, you automatically go about saying that people are putting words in your mouth, Pogo.

Why do homosexuals fight for rights? Not only for their "equality" but for their interests. See how that works, Pogo? Video games and Corvettes are nothing but a false dichotomy.


----------



## OKTexas

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm;
> 
> 2.  Said license can be suspended or revoked for cause;
> 
> 3.  Anyone who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm and does not have a valid license is guilty of a felon, and subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and/or Five year in Prison;
> 
> 4.  Anyone with a license who loans, sells, gives or allows a person without a license to have in their possession, custody of control a firearm is guilty of a felony, and subject to revocation of their license, surrender of all of their firearms, a fine of not less than $10,000 nor more than $25,000 and/or five years in prison;
> 
> 5.  Anyone guilty of a violent felony with the use of a firearm, domestic violence, battery, rape, robbery, mayhem, child abuse, child molestation, kidnapping or other infamous felony who owns, possesses or has in his or her custody and control a firearm shall be fined not less than $100,000 and be sentenced to not less than 25 years in prison.
Click to expand...


So much for "shall not be infringed". How many more in the bill of rights to you want to trash in the process, why not the 4th and 5th amendments while your at it?


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, it is not "reasonable and logical"; it is elective.  You're injecting your own content.  I'll ask you for the third time: how are _rights_ and _interests_ related?
> 
> How do you need a law to have an _interest_ in a video game or a Corvette?  In what way is that interest obliterated if Corvettes become illegal?
> 
> And where have I posted anything about "rights"?
> 
> You're verging here on doing the same thing Cousin It did-- plugging in what you wish I'd said instead of dealing with what I actually did say.  It stumps me why some of y'all just can't bear to face the issue and insist on putting up these "law" strawmen.  Again I say - laws didn't get us to where we are, and laws ain't gonna get us out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rights and interests are always related. When someone nails your position, you automatically go about saying that people are putting words in your mouth, Pogo.
> 
> Why do homosexuals fight for rights? Not only for their "equality" but for their interests. See how that works, Pogo? Video games and Corvettes are nothing but a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...


OK well if that's as wide as your net casts, there's no point in going on; this is the same point Kaz and I got to eons ago-- once he/she/it couldn't think creatively enough to expand its paradigm, it insisted I haven't said anything because it can't deal with what's on the page.  I've put too much thought into the position I came here with to abandon that and pretend the issue is about something else that I already rejected.  

There is *no* relationship between rights and interests.  Your attempted analogy is, sorry, ridiculous.  

You're seeing "rights" because you're seeing "laws".  That's a strawman.  Basically the OP (in its text) is asking the wrong question for its own title; it assumes the false premise that any such solution must be based on _laws_, as if throwing laws at the problem (or throwing them away) is the only way to effect change.   Again, that's a slavish box that I'm not going into.  I left that box behind for a reason; it's a dead end.  Fuck laws.

But do go on and I'm sure whatever comes out of that box will be as effective as its predecessors like Prohibition and Reefer Madness.  We never learn.


----------



## Spoonman

TemplarKormac said:


> In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.
> 
> "By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."
> 
> Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.
> 
> "By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."
> 
> Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.
Click to expand...


I don't know where that graphic comes from but having lived in New Orleans I can say without hesitation it's full of shit.

Just sayin'.


----------



## OKTexas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.
Click to expand...


So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?


----------



## TemplarKormac

OKTexas said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would know their rights and be responsible with their firearms. You cannot legislate common sense. Nor can you sit there and legislate away the rights of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a criminal few, either. By the way, guns, like drugs, can be sold and bought right under the noses of law enforcement. These laws wouldn't even begin to scratch the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?
Click to expand...


Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.


----------



## OKTexas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absent due process, of course.
Click to expand...


You're not paying attention, I said just the opposite.


----------



## Spoonman

TemplarKormac said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity the inconsistency of you and most others on the right, where you fail to apply this reasoning to other violations of citizens civil liberties, such as the right to equal protection of the law, the right to privacy, or the right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.
Click to expand...


or to vote.


----------



## Wry Catcher

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment.  I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms.  The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Spoonman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think anyone should need an ID or a background check to buy a gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or to vote.
Click to expand...


Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.


----------



## OKTexas

Wry Catcher said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment.  I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms.  The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.
Click to expand...


A state has no duty to protect, the supremes have already ruled on that, so it is not a justification for denying rights.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK --- not quite sure how one can be in favor of something more than one is, but quote me where I've said anything about "rights" and we'll go from there.
> 
> You like video games?  Or cheesecake or a fast Corvette?  None of those are "rights" but they can all be obsessions.
> See where I am?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being implicit. Speaking tongue in cheek. You don't think too highly of folks who own guns or support gun rights just by your "gun fetishists" talk, you've just now referred to it as an "obsession"; therefore it is reasonable and logical to assume you would favor laws or regulations to curb this "obsession." I'm going off of what I'm given, Pogo.
> 
> Your terminology is giving your position away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Those of us who are staunch advocates of Second Amendment rights cringe when exposed to the stupidity and ignorance of gun rights extremists, with their moronic, *errant notion that the rights* enshrined in the Second Amendment *are not subject to reasonable restrictions*, or that the Second Amendment somehow trumps the First, allowing a minority of the population to take up arms against a Federal government subjectively perceived to be tyrannical.
> 
> Their ignorance and stupidity do more to undermine Second Amendment rights than any gun grabber, because they reinforce the ugly stereotype of gun owners being irresponsible, thus facilitating efforts to enact more gun control.
Click to expand...


Ah - classic, pure, Dumbocrat ignorance. Think of the absurd contradiction of that statement. Rights should be "subject" to "reasonable" restrictions?

There are a billion ways to smash such unadulterated ignorance - but I'll start with the most obvious and simple: who gets to decide what constitutes "reasonable restrictions" CCJ? Anti-gun nuts like you and Obama? Like Michael Bloomberg?

I look forward to you running from this reality like the disingenuous coward that you are....


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we have an example of the ignorance and stupidity common to most gun rights extremists; unwittingly doing great harm to our Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...


And yet you can't dispute a single thing I said - because the facts prove I'm right. When was the last time a maniac walked into an NRA meeting and opened fire?

Where you assholes create VITCIM ZONES, massacres ensue. And frankly, the American people are getting good and damn tired of it. Which is why you're panties are in a bunch. You know the indisputable facts have you on the verge of losing this battle.


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's a fact dumb ass, but the question is do they have less violence and usually the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck, are you stupid.
Click to expand...


Another ignorant Dumbocrat pissed that they can't dispute the facts...


----------



## P@triot

TemplarKormac said:


> In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.
> 
> "By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."
> 
> Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.



What do you mean "should" be? Chicago _is_ a prime example. As is cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, marijuana, rape, prostitution, sex-slaves, molestation, child-trafficking, child pornography, stabbing, theft, robbery, arson, embezzlement, tax evasion, organized crime, assault, battery, domestic violence, MURDER...... it's endless. All of it outlawed, and all of it still happening.

Yet ignorant asshates like CCJ think they can "outlaw" gun violence out of existence. Really? And the 3,000 other examples (murder, rape, etc.) which are outlawed and still occur daily are what - anomalies that won't happen with guns? 

Jesus, these Dumbocrats are so fuck'n stupid it actually gives me chills. No wonder they need to live off of government.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I pretty clearly stated the fact that you were arguing against guns in a thread on gun laws.  Which you agreed with.  And I asked you what you did mean then, and got no answer until a couple posts ago.  You know, like when you kept badgering Templar to clarify his views on another thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with".  Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got no answer until a few posts ago.  Note when you did finally state it, I jumped in and acknowledged it.  This makes no sense.  And seriously with the name calling, are you eight?  Or you're just emotionally eight?
Click to expand...


"Name calling"??  

Look It, you parade around in a dress and then wet your pants when I logically use the pronoun "she" and then refuse to state at all what your fucking gender is, that makes you an "It".  You don't like it, It, then figure out what your own damn sex is and stop hiding behind a dress, asshole.


----------



## Pogo

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.
Click to expand...


That has never worked.  Hell your own state executes murderers; has that stopped murder?

Again, the body we call "criminals is not like some species you can extinguish.   It's an aribitrary category.  Criminals today were good citizens yesterday.

Simple concept?  Sure is.  Way TOO simple.


----------



## Londoner

What about the legislation Ronald Reagan supported?


----------



## OKTexas

Wry Catcher said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.
Click to expand...


Really, politicians have killed more peopel than any criminal, you commies claim Bush killed thousands. Votes put him in office.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your view, are the criminals equivalent to the Cowboys or the Indians?
> 
> Honest citizens are good, criminals are bad.  Since neither cowboys nor Indians were all good or all bad, you presented your own false dichotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo.
Click to expand...


More like Bullshit.

_*There is no game of cowboys and Indians*_.  That was the whole point. Sailed right over Cousin It's head and apparently yours too.

"False dichotomy" my asshole.  Right over It's head.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is for gun control has blood all over their hands from Sandy Hook and all of the others. There is a reason that these maniacs went to gun-free zones: because they are VICTIM ZONES. They knew there would be nobody there with a gun to stop them.
> 
> Bloods on your hand [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I hope you are forced to spend eternity looking at the precious faces of those little one's who you helped *murder* with your irrational anti-gun idiocy and you're hunger for power & control.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, are you stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another ignorant Dumbocrat pissed that they can't dispute the facts...
Click to expand...


Instead of packing their kids a lunch, mom's all across your world would pack them a piece.


----------



## OKTexas

Pogo said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out".  Not possible.  Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements.  Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
> 
> "Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction.  They're part of human nature.  That's the first thing you gotta get through your head.  Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit.  Everything has a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has never worked.  Hell your own state executes murderers; has that stopped murder?
> 
> Again, the body we call "criminals is not like some species you can extinguish.   It's an aribitrary category.  Criminals today were good citizens yesterday.
> 
> Simple concept?  Sure is.  Way TOO simple.
Click to expand...


I don't expect to make them go extinct, I expect it would shorten their criminal careers substantially and reduce the numbers of their victims and save money on warehousing them. People are going to screw up, under my plan they just wouldn't be allowed to make a long term habit of it.


----------



## P@triot

OKTexas said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep their part of human nature, but if they learn that there will be no revolving door in the jail they will adjust their bahavior or die, it's a very simple concept, if you can't live by the rules then you will die by the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has never worked.  Hell your own state executes murderers; has that stopped murder?
> 
> Again, the body we call "criminals is not like some species you can extinguish.   It's an aribitrary category.  Criminals today were good citizens yesterday.
> 
> Simple concept?  Sure is.  Way TOO simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect to make them go extinct, I expect it would shorten their criminal careers substantially and reduce the numbers of their victims and save money on warehousing them. People are going to screw up, under my plan they just wouldn't be allowed to make a long term habit of it.
Click to expand...


The facts show that gun-free zones = VICTIM ZONES and where guns are prevelant, peace reigns. In fact, statistics show that when conceal carry laws are enacted, even simple confrontations such as fist-fights plummet because people are not so bold when they know other people might have a gun on them.

When have ever you ever seen a "Sandy Hook" at a police station? It's never happened and it never will. I'm aware of *one* situation where a maniac decided to walk into a police station and open fire. The results? One dead bad guy, all officers alive and well.

As always, the facts show just how ignorant Dumbocrats are...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with".  Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got no answer until a few posts ago.  Note when you did finally state it, I jumped in and acknowledged it.  This makes no sense.  And seriously with the name calling, are you eight?  Or you're just emotionally eight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Name calling"??
> 
> Look It, you parade around in a dress and then wet your pants when I logically use the pronoun "she" and then refuse to state at all what your fucking gender is, that makes you an "It".  You don't like it, It, then figure out what your own damn sex is and stop hiding behind a dress, asshole.
Click to expand...


Does that 8 year old crap really work on anyone?  I mean for real, not in your head. You are the terror of the playground though.  Toddlers quake in fear when they see you opening the gate and stepping into the sand box because they know a real scathing tirade is about to come.


----------



## kaz

hazlnut said:


> A national database accessible by all law enforcement.
> 
> Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip -- you sell it, the new owner has to pass a background check.
> 
> Every gun recovered at a crime should be traceable back to an owner.
> 
> 
> Once we identity who is selling guns or moving guns into the black market, then we arrest them.
> 
> The black market dries up, it becomes harder from criminals to get guns, the price of black market guns goes way up.
> 
> Of course, paranoid gun nutters think there's going to be a gun 'grab' and they fight any national gun database like maniacs.
> 
> There is a small but loud sector of gun ownership that is definitely a cult.



Suppose for a moment that this all worked with the domestic supply of guns.  Then they start bringing any of the millions of guns in the rest of the world across the border and selling them and as well foreign gun manufacturers ramp up production to bring more.  Oops, your plan is dead in the water.

The fallacy that leftists all employ with your plans is that you think that criminals won't ... wait for it ... break the law to buy guns.   Your plans are all based on that honest citizens will follow the law, like getting your pink slip.  Then you assume that bam, the CRIMINALS won't get the guns!

And you didn't answer the fundamental question from the OP.  Why will your plan work when any high schooler can get all the pot they want?  There are millions of guns in circulation in the US, outside the US.  The technology is not hard.  There are manufacturers in and OUTSIDE the US.  Many leftists even mock conservatives for even trying to ban pot because it'll never work.  But then guns?  The pot solution will work, because you want it to now!  And like conservatives ignore pot laws are not working, you ignore gun laws are not working.  Neither work, neither will work, you both need to grow up.


----------



## Wildman

kaz said:


> Think about it.



"Think about it."..,

 awwww come on, don't you know liberals are incapable of "THINKING" ??

read and listen to them, all they know is "FEEEEEL"


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Last, when you find the passage in the _Heller_ ruling where Justice Scalia explains that the Second Amendment right is unlimited and not subject to government restrictions, get back to us.



Gays can marry the exact same things as straights can, yet you find that unfair because they don't want to marry the same people, so you word parse and out pops a new Constitutional amendment that they didn't mean and didn't write.

Yet with guns, it actually says "shall not be infringed," but you don't want that, so now a right that can't be infringed is limited and subject to government restrictions.

Are other rights, like the right of a free press, the right to free speech, the right to religious freedom, protection from search and seizure also limited and subject to government regulations, or just guns?

Be honest, you don't care what the Constitution says.  You just transactionally pick a position then justify it the best way you can.  Sometimes that means reading rights that aren't there (gay marriage, abortion), sometimes it means ignoring rights that are there (shall not be infringed), sometimes it means ignoring entire amendments (the 9th and 10th).  What ever it takes to get your way.

And I am not like you.  I am for example pro-choice, but I recognize that word parsing the Constitution and usurping State rights is a far greater threat to my liberty than allowing States to make their own choices where the Constitution doesn't afford the Federal government authority.


----------



## Wildman

hazlnut said:


> Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip --



there is NO such thing as an "assault weapon", if you are referring to military grade full auto firearms, a $200.00 tax stamp required for any select fire weapon, go here for the info on "assault weapons", *Firearms - Guides - Identification of Firearms | ATFhttp://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html*http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

just for your education, machine guns, silencers, and select fire weapons are *NOT* illegal to own, a person just has to jump thru the .gov requirements and regulations plus $12,000.00+ and BINGO !! you can own just about any weapon/firearm one wants..., even a Sherman tank...., if one has the $$$$$$$$$ to shell out.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment.  I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms.  The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.
Click to expand...


Suppose to be protected from illegal search and seizure, you need to register, show ID and buy a license?

Suppose to vote you have to get a free ID?  The right to vote isn't even in the Constitution...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.
Click to expand...


Welfare check:  So government stealing isn't adequate to protect our rights, someone needs to get killed.  Got it.

Voting:  Now you're really clueless, have you not followed the news and all the people getting killed in foreign wars by the people both you and your mortal enemy the Republicans elected?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I got no answer" means "I didn't get the answer I wanted to hear and could deal with".  Your illiteracy is not my problem, Cousin It.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got no answer until a few posts ago.  Note when you did finally state it, I jumped in and acknowledged it.  This makes no sense.  And seriously with the name calling, are you eight?  Or you're just emotionally eight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Name calling"??
> 
> Look It, you parade around in a dress and then wet your pants when I logically use the pronoun "she" and then refuse to state at all what your fucking gender is, that makes you an "It".  You don't like it, It, then figure out what your own damn sex is and stop hiding behind a dress, asshole.
Click to expand...


Do your parents know what you're doing on the internet?  I guess the good side is we know with your lack of interest in hot girls that you're not surfing for porn...


----------



## Pogo

^^ Not one but _two_ posts of whiny-whine about It's own inability to guess its own sex.  And STILL offers no answer.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> ^^ Not one but _two_ posts of whiny-whine about It's own inability to guess its own sex.  And STILL offers no answer.





That's some pretty vicious smack.  Tell the truth, were you professionally trained?


----------



## kaz

Wildman said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every assault weapon comes with a pink slip --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is NO such thing as an "assault weapon", if you are referring to military grade full auto firearms, a $200.00 tax stamp required for any select fire weapon, go here for the info on "assault weapons", *Firearms - Guides - Identification of Firearms | ATFhttp://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html*http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html
> 
> just for your education, machine guns, silencers, and select fire weapons are *NOT* illegal to own, a person just has to jump thru the .gov requirements and regulations plus $12,000.00+ and BINGO !! you can own just about any weapon/firearm one wants..., even a Sherman tank...., if one has the $$$$$$$$$ to shell out.
Click to expand...


Leftists call them assault weapons because that sounds scarier and implies they are only for attacking and not for defense.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.
Click to expand...


Last time I looked, it didn't matter. Last time I looked, that's what we would call a double standard.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> or to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I looked, it didn't matter. Last time I looked, that's what we would call a double standard.
Click to expand...


"Double standard"??  

Not sure what you think the term means but it's not applicable here.
Do you perhaps mean a bad analogy?


----------



## OKTexas

Bumberclyde said:


> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?



It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?



Well, as the OP stated, we can't keep them from criminals.  So we should allow people to defend themselves since what we have now is armed criminals and unarmed citizenry.

I do like the idea that normal people favor armed criminals and unarmed victims and those of us who don't think government should stop people from protecting themselves are "nutters" though...


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> ^^ Not one but _two_ posts of whiny-whine about It's own inability to guess its own sex.  And STILL offers no answer.



Speaking of no answer, you answered the op with your position, but you didn't present a plan.  How exactly are you going to go about convincing gangstas and criminals to reject a gun culture exactly?


----------



## Politico

They don't have a plan. Nor do they really care.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Not one but _two_ posts of whiny-whine about It's own inability to guess its own sex.  And STILL offers no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of no answer, you answered the op with your position, but you didn't present a plan.  How exactly are you going to go about convincing gangstas and criminals to reject a gun culture exactly?
Click to expand...


You can't even identify your own gender and you wanna get all demandy?

Pfft.   Don't think so, It.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Not one but _two_ posts of whiny-whine about It's own inability to guess its own sex.  And STILL offers no answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of no answer, you answered the op with your position, but you didn't present a plan.  How exactly are you going to go about convincing gangstas and criminals to reject a gun culture exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even identify your own gender and you wanna get all demandy?
> 
> Pfft.   Don't think so, It.
Click to expand...


There is nothing I could possibly say that would be as embarrassing to you as what you do to yourself, so I just keep you talking.

And you have no idea how to change the gun culture.  At least though you aren't going to take away guns while you figure it out, I'll give you credit for that.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of no answer, you answered the op with your position, but you didn't present a plan.  How exactly are you going to go about convincing gangstas and criminals to reject a gun culture exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even identify your own gender and you wanna get all demandy?
> 
> Pfft.   Don't think so, It.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing I could possibly say that would be as embarrassing to you as what you do to yourself, so I just keep you talking.
> 
> And you have no idea how to change the gun culture.  At least though you aren't going to take away guns while you figure it out, I'll give you credit for that.
Click to expand...


There is nothing you need to say as long as you parade around in a dress while simultaneously objecting to a feminine pronoun.  It tells us all you're a pissant who can't take a position and wants to hide behind a dress.  So you're not exactly in any position to be making demands.  Until you figure out your own basics, you just ain't worth my time, coward.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even identify your own gender and you wanna get all demandy?
> 
> Pfft.   Don't think so, It.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I could possibly say that would be as embarrassing to you as what you do to yourself, so I just keep you talking.
> 
> And you have no idea how to change the gun culture.  At least though you aren't going to take away guns while you figure it out, I'll give you credit for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing you need to say as long as you parade around in a dress while simultaneously objecting to a feminine pronoun.  It tells us all you're a pissant who can't take a position and wants to hide behind a dress.  So you're not exactly in any position to be making demands.  Until you figure out your own basics, you just ain't worth my time, coward.
Click to expand...


I never objected to the feminine pronoun, Homey.  I just pointed out that you were insulting women by calling me "she" as an insult.  I also mocked you for calling me a liar when I said that you called me female by calling me "she."  Now you're insulting Eunuchs by calling me "it."  The "it" one is a bit ironic since I'm clearly hetero and you're apparently not interested in women.  I also am mocking you for name calling.  By your logic, I'm a liar because to do that you would have to call me, "Name."  LOL

But my theme is liberty.  It's sad that when you see a woman in a Statue of Liberty dress you only identify her by her gender.  The theme is liberty.  I love the Statue, but she was hotter.  You wouldn't know apparently...

Also, when you do have a plan to change the gun culture, if you ever do, I would be interested.  Let me know.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow the States the power to license those who want to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the understanding that the states also have the power to not license those who want to own, possess, or have in their custody or control a firearm, as such measures would be in violation of those states constitutions, and likely the Federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the courts decide licensing would violate the Second Amendment.  I'm of the opinion licensing does not infringe the right to own arms.  The laws already allow restrictions on some citizens from own, possessing or having in their custody and control guns, and allowing the states to police their duty to protect their citizens seems reasonable.
Click to expand...


And I am of the opinion that licensing requirements do infringe upon the right to own a firearm, as licensing requirements lack a rational basis, lack objective, documented evidence in support, and do not pursue a legitimate legislative end; indeed, they seek to disadvantage gun owners predicated solely on the presumption that something bad *might* happen. 

Just as laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote are un-Constitutional because theyre predicated upon a presumption of guilt that one *might* commit voter fraud, so too are gun licensing laws un-Constitutional for the same reason.  

The state may not restrict a Constitutional right  be it the right to own a gun or the right to vote  absent evidence in support, or because of the governments unfounded fear that a citizen will violate the law in the context of exercising that right. 

True, current Second Amendment jurisprudence does hold that licensing requirements are Constitutional, and I am compelled to accept that jurisprudence accordingly. 

But I also support the right of some states to not enact licensing measures because those states correctly understand such measures to be un-Constitutional, as they lack a rational basis and evidence in support.  Moreover, citizens in states which have licensing requirements also have the right to seek to repeal licensing measures through the legislative process.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing I could possibly say that would be as embarrassing to you as what you do to yourself, so I just keep you talking.
> 
> And you have no idea how to change the gun culture.  At least though you aren't going to take away guns while you figure it out, I'll give you credit for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing you need to say as long as you parade around in a dress while simultaneously objecting to a feminine pronoun.  It tells us all you're a pissant who can't take a position and wants to hide behind a dress.  So you're not exactly in any position to be making demands.  Until you figure out your own basics, you just ain't worth my time, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never objected to the feminine pronoun, Homey.  I just pointed out that you were insulting women by calling me "she" as an insult.  I also mocked you for calling me a liar when I said that you called me female by calling me "she."  Now you're insulting Eunuchs by calling me "it."  The "it" one is a bit ironic since I'm clearly hetero and you're apparently not interested in women.  I also am mocking you for name calling.  By your logic, I'm a liar because to do that you would have to call me, "Name."  LOL
> 
> But my theme is liberty.  It's sad that when you see a woman in a Statue of Liberty dress you only identify her by her gender.  The theme is liberty.  I love the Statue, but she was hotter.  You wouldn't know apparently...
> 
> Also, when you do have a plan to change the gun culture, if you ever do, I would be interested.  Let me know.
Click to expand...


"Statue of Liberty dress"?  What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?  

Clearly you're confuserated.  The word _she_ has never been an "insult".  That post makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, everyone needs an ID or background check for to buy a gun, but not for a welfare check. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I looked no one every got killed by a welfare check or a vote.
Click to expand...


Which goes to the fact that laws requiring a background check and ID to purchase a firearm are Constitutional. 

Unlike laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote, a background check is Constitutional because its rationally based, has evidence in support, and pursues a proper legislate end  to wit: disallowing felons, the mentally ill, or those abusing narcotics from possessing a firearm: 



> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER



In general, when a state seeks to restrict a Constitutional right, the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify the restriction, and absent justification, is disallowed from doing so.


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> So we should allow people to defend themselves *since what we have now is armed criminals and unarmed citizenry.*



So, you are saying that everyone that owns a gun in America is a criminal?  Brilliant...


----------



## OODA_Loop

OKTexas said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
Click to expand...


Swift and certain gun crime penalties.

Commit a gun crime = Life in prison
Commit a gun crime resulting in death = Execution

Fixed.


----------



## OODA_Loop

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unlike laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote, a background check is Constitutional because its rationally based, has evidence in support, and pursues a proper legislate end  to wit: disallowing felons, the mentally ill, or those abusing narcotics from possessing a firearm:



Clay you think voter is not rational ?

Damn son.


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should allow people to defend themselves *since what we have now is armed criminals and unarmed citizenry.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are saying that everyone that owns a gun in America is a criminal?  Brilliant...
Click to expand...




Snarky comments that add nothing to the discussion and make no sense in light of what was quoted add so much to the discussion, thank you for that contribution.


----------



## Bumberclyde

OKTexas said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
Click to expand...


The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?


----------



## kaz

OODA_Loop said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swift and certain gun crime penalties.
> 
> Commit a gun crime = Life in prison
> Commit a gun crime resulting in death = Execution
> 
> Fixed.
Click to expand...


Are you arguing that we do this and ban guns?  Or we do this and don't ban guns?

If it's the former, the right won't go for it because it bans guns and the left won't because they want to coddle the guilty and blame society and they oppose the death penalty.   If you are not banning guns, you are not addressing the op.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
Click to expand...


Ban "gun free" zones for starters.

Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.

I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.

We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters.
> 
> Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.
> 
> I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.
> 
> We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.
Click to expand...


Ok, you have nothing. Anyone else?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters.
> 
> Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.
> 
> I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.
> 
> We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, you have nothing. Anyone else?
Click to expand...


It's nothing to morons and retards.

Which one are you?


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unlike laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote, *a background check is Constitutional because its rationally based*, has evidence in support, and pursues a proper legislate end  to wit: disallowing felons, the mentally ill, or those abusing narcotics from possessing a firearm



We need to start a show called "Dumbocrats Say The Darndest Things"... 

Hey junior - something is *not* Constitutional because it is "rationally-based". Something is Constitutional because it adheres to what is _in_ the Constitution (ie my ownership of firearms is Constitutional because the 2nd Amendment states that I have the right to keep and bear arms)... 

The left literally just makes shit up as they go. I've come to the conclusion that they are just too fuck'n lazy to read the U.S. Constitution - yet they are desperate to be seen as "educated" and "enlightened", so they just throw shit out there and hope that others are as uninformed as they are....


----------



## P@triot

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters.
> 
> Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.
> 
> I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.
> 
> We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters.
> 
> Then let's debate how we can distinguish those that are mentally disturbed and include them in the NICS database so they cannot purchase firearms.
> 
> I also believe we should teach gun safety in school and what a child should do when they see a gun.
> 
> We need less restrictions on law abiding citizens, not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, you have nothing. Anyone else?
Click to expand...


It's amazing - Dumbocrats like you have no solutions. None. Not even one. You've been asked for 200 pages now to provide one and the lot of you can't come up with even ONE thing.

Yet, when a conservative provides real-world, practical, proven solutions, you give a snarky response like an asshole.

What's really sad is that you can't even articulate why it's a bad solution. You literally just waste time and space on the board by saying "ok, you have nothing". The fact that you can't articulate _why_ he has "nothing" (as I am doing to you here) is glaring evidence that he's right and you are dead-wrong.

You're not only ignorant, you're lazy. In other words, you're a liberal.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> Ban "gun free" zones for starters



One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike laws requiring a state-issued photo ID to vote, *a background check is Constitutional because it&#8217;s rationally based*, has evidence in support, and pursues a proper legislate end &#8211; to wit: disallowing felons, the mentally ill, or those abusing narcotics from possessing a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to start a show called "Dumbocrats Say The Darndest Things"...
> 
> Hey junior - something is *not* Constitutional because it is "rationally-based". Something is Constitutional because it adheres to what is _in_ the Constitution (ie my ownership of firearms is Constitutional because the 2nd Amendment states that I have the right to keep and bear arms)...
> 
> The left literally just makes shit up as they go. I've come to the conclusion that they are just too fuck'n lazy to read the U.S. Constitution - yet they are desperate to be seen as "educated" and "enlightened", so they just throw shit out there and hope that others are as uninformed as they are....
Click to expand...


So checking ID for guns, forcing them to register with government and pay fees is rationally based.   Checking the ID of someone who wants to vote for the people who create our laws isn't.

What clayton means is "rational" = "leftist."

He also has an imaginary "right to vote" he keeps referring to that he says is in the Constitution and he ignores my requests to show that text.  There is no such Constitutional right.

I do give him credit though that he is not for restricting gun ownership.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
Click to expand...


Well, technically they are working, they are just not working in the way that we want them to.  Every time there's a mass shooting, no one is shooting back.  These shootings keep happening in gun free zones, and for a reason.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.
Click to expand...


Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.


----------



## hunarcy

Bumberclyde said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals. So what is the NRA/gun gutter position on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
Click to expand...


So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work.   Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side.   Now, do YOU have anything else?


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, technically they are working, they are just not working in the way that we want them to.  Every time there's a mass shooting, no one is shooting back.  These shootings keep happening in gun free zones, and for a reason.
Click to expand...


Ok, you have nothing. Next.


----------



## Bumberclyde

hunarcy said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's already illegal, inforce the law. Is it really that hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work.   Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side.   Now, do YOU have anything else?
Click to expand...


I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.
Click to expand...


I was happy, then sad.  How is a private business "open to the public" not private property?  How can you morally, legally or ethically tell someone what rules they must follow on their own property?  I'm totally for following the second amendment, which say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, by government, you have me there.  It's that you're saying people don't have the right to determine the rules on their own property rights that I find objectionable.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, technically they are working, they are just not working in the way that we want them to.  Every time there's a mass shooting, no one is shooting back.  These shootings keep happening in gun free zones, and for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, you have nothing. Next.
Click to expand...


I don't even know what that means.

What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win.  Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.

How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.


----------



## hunarcy

Bumberclyde said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work.   Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side.   Now, do YOU have anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.
> 
> And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.
Click to expand...


My Lord, you're a stupid person.  Why did I waste a moment trying to have a serious discussion with you on any thread?


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> I don't even know what that means.
> 
> What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win.  Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.
> 
> How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.



The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said.  Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws in place are obviously not working. Got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work.   Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side.   Now, do YOU have anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.
> 
> And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.
Click to expand...


I answered this question.  Read the OP.  We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands.  Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.

And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution.  We support a liberty solution.

And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know what that means.
> 
> What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win.  Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.
> 
> How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said.  Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  Who is he/she/it?  And apparently as I keep providing you content to your hand waving that you continue to ignore, he/she it is not the one who is too stupid to contribute to the discussion.  What about addressing the points I keep making to your vapor arguments?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was happy, then sad.  How is a private business "open to the public" not private property?  How can you morally, legally or ethically tell someone what rules they must follow on their own property?  I'm totally for following the second amendment, which say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, by government, you have me there.  It's that you're saying people don't have the right to determine the rules on their own property rights that I find objectionable.
Click to expand...


I'm saying what I would do. But the reality is the government is already telling private business owners what they can or cannot do. I haven't heard you rail against that. 

In my opinion any place that is open to the public shouldn't have rules that interfere with anyone's Constitutional right.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know what that means.
> 
> What I have is that gun laws don't work, the Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  We follow the Constitution and allow people to protect themselves, win-win.  Now we don't follow the Constitution, we don't allow people to defend themselves, and every time there is a mass shooting no one is shooting back because the victims followed the law and the criminal didn't.
> 
> How that is having "nothing" is for you to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said.  Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  Who is he/she/it?  And apparently as I keep providing you content to your hand waving that you continue to ignore, he/she it is not the one who is too stupid to contribute to the discussion.  What about addressing the points I keep making to your vapor arguments?
Click to expand...


He/she/it is Bumberclyde who has repeatedly shown that he is not here to debate but is here to talk nonsense and distract.  I have come to the conclusion that  Bumberclyde  must be a "timesuck troll" whose goal is to tie people up in circular arguments...as he/she/it seems to be trying to do with you.


----------



## dannyboys

Pogo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's worse than what we have now.  Most criminals actually don't have assets.  That's why few criminal convictions are ensued by civil cases.  This is again going to punish honest citizens far greater than criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens would comply with the law as proposed before they would own, possess or have in their custody or control firearms, they would not sell firearms on the black market.  Consider those who caused the greatest carnage since Columbine, *how many were criminals before they committed their atrocities*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely -- another fallacy of that false dichotomy of seeing the world as a giant game of Cowboys and Indians.
Click to expand...

Ah. 'From the mouth of babes'. You got it in one. The world IS one big game of cowboys and indians. The cowboys and Indians are just called something different case by case.
 Time for some facts: (Not that some of you are sentient enough to understand them)
How do the simians get illegal hand guns? 
In fact there are not that many 'fresh illegal hand guns on the market in any inner city at any given time.
Here's some plain and hopefully simple questions for you all about an illegal 'fresh' meaning outside the area enters say downtown Detroit.
Where did the hand gun come from?
It came from someone who bought the gun from some one who stole it or traded it for crack or meth from a simian in Chicagoland. 
The only illegal hand guns that are taken out of the inner city are by the cops. In many cases those guns are put into an evidence locker and forgotten about. The always 'bent' cops eventually steal the guns and they end up being sold and they are taken to another city to be traded for drugs mostly. 
The hilarious part is some guns have seen more cities in the last decade then Dianna Ross and the Supremes did.
 The idea that the guns are 'straw purchased' from gun shows is a bit of a myth. Yes it happens but the undercover cops have infiltrated this whole scene and they know when every straw purchaser takes a leak. The cops have been known to put tiny GPS's under the cheeks plates. 
This means what? 99% of the guns in any inner city haven't been fired in years. 99.9% of the guns come with full clips that frankly the simians who get their paws on them are too shit scared to try to play with. Some that do end up shooting 'baby-mamma' by accident.
 It's hilarious when you think about it.
So bottom line: You are fifteen. You must buy some 'street cred' (you aren't capable of earning it) so you steal something from your cousin to buy a hand gun for fifty bucks. You've never even held a gun let alone know how to fire it but it definitely puts a 'bulge' in your 'poopy pants'.
 Then you need money for dope so you sell/trade the gun to Jamel.
Tens of thousands of illegal hand guns are the 'currency' among gang-bangers.....that and pimping out their twelve year old sisters.
The guns move from city to city young Black man to young Black man.
Sure a couple of dozen need to be injected onto the streets per week in the country b/c some simian shot his cousin over a pair of Nikes but the number of illegal stolen hand guns from your average B&E in the suburbs isn't that many. Most legal gun owners in the suburbs are smart enough to make sure their guns are never stolen.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was happy, then sad.  How is a private business "open to the public" not private property?  How can you morally, legally or ethically tell someone what rules they must follow on their own property?  I'm totally for following the second amendment, which say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, by government, you have me there.  It's that you're saying people don't have the right to determine the rules on their own property rights that I find objectionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I would do. But the reality is the government is already telling private business owners what they can or cannot do. I haven't heard you rail against that.
Click to expand...


Wow, then you haven't been reading my posts.  I can't think of many discussions  I am in where I am not railing against government overstepping their authority.  My avatar is the Statue of Liberty.  Well, now a woman dressed up as her.   That's like my whole gig, dude.



Lonestar_logic said:


> In my opinion any place that is open to the public shouldn't have rules that interfere with anyone's Constitutional right.



So I open a business (I am a business owner by the way), and it's not my property rights to state the rules for my customers or other people from the public who come here?  That's a job for the government to do?  Seriously?


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you "have nothing" is because he/she/it is too stupid to understand what's being said.  Honestly, I feel he/she/it has nothing to contribute to a discussion and therefore isn't worth reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  Who is he/she/it?  And apparently as I keep providing you content to your hand waving that you continue to ignore, he/she it is not the one who is too stupid to contribute to the discussion.  What about addressing the points I keep making to your vapor arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He/she/it is Bumberclyde who has repeatedly shown that he is not here to debate but is here to talk nonsense and distract.  I have come to the conclusion that  Bumberclyde  must be a "timesuck troll" whose goal is to tie people up in circular arguments...as he/she/it seems to be trying to do with you.
Click to expand...


You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion.  In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either.  I am the OP you know.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion.  In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either.  I am the OP you know.



What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed?  And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion.  In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either.  I am the OP you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed?  And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.
Click to expand...


OK, fair enough.  With the last point I'll just assume you were agreeing.  Just as a tip though, while I agree that you don't need to expand on why you agree, just giving a hint would cut down on the confusion.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could be right, but I don't think you're providing a lot of content behind that opinion.  In fact, I have provided content in responding to you and you haven't addressed that either.  I am the OP you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed?  And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough.  With the last point I'll just assume you were agreeing.  Just as a tip though, while I agree that you don't need to expand on why you agree, just giving a hint would cut down on the confusion.
Click to expand...


I'm not shy about pointing out where I disagree.  What may have confused things is that I was dealing with the bumbler guy on two related threads and realized what his tactics revealed on the other thread.  So, when I got here, I didn't have the patience I should have had to explain my reasoning.  I'll fall on my sword for this one.


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What content have you provided in response to me that I haven't addressed?  And, please remember that content that's agreeable need not be challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, fair enough.  With the last point I'll just assume you were agreeing.  Just as a tip though, while I agree that you don't need to expand on why you agree, just giving a hint would cut down on the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not shy about pointing out where I disagree.  What may have confused things is that I was dealing with the bumbler guy on two related threads and realized what his tactics revealed on the other thread.  So, when I got here, I didn't have the patience I should have had to explain my reasoning.  I'll fall on my sword for this one.
Click to expand...


We're good


----------



## P@triot

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban "gun free" zones for starters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.
Click to expand...


I fiercely disagree here LL. If a person owns a business, who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with that business? If the owner is an idiot liberal (not likely to happen anyway considering how dumb liberals are) who wants to ban guns and create a victim zone, that's there business. You and I have the freedom to not patron that victim zone (and we won't). Furthermore, those are the places which will experience the mass shootings and they will be put out of business from that anyway.

You don't have to hang Dumbocrats LL - just give them the freedom to hang themselves. It's just like here on USMB. They have the freedom to speak and all they do is expose their ignorance and contradict themselves. Not only would we be doing them a favor by silencing them, but we'd be despicable hypocrites like them. The freedom we scream about includes their freedom as well. And the beauty of freedom is that it allows idiots such as Dumbocrats to implode.


----------



## Whig_Out

Rottweiler said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fiercely disagree here LL. If a person owns a business, who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with that business? If the owner is an idiot liberal (not likely to happen anyway considering how dumb liberals are) who wants to ban guns and create a victim zone, that's there business. You and I have the freedom to not patron that victim zone (and we won't). Furthermore, those are the places which will experience the mass shootings and they will be put out of business from that anyway.
> 
> You don't have to hang Dumbocrats LL - just give them the freedom to hang themselves. It's just like here on USMB. They have the freedom to speak and all they do is expose their ignorance and contradict themselves. Not only would we be doing them a favor by silencing them, but we'd be despicable hypocrites like them. The freedom we scream about includes their freedom as well. And the beauty of freedom is that it allows idiots such as Dumbocrats to implode.
Click to expand...


Oh shit, fiercely disagrees on an internet forum.  World changer here!  And a creative one with words like "Dumbocrats".  What a guy, what a tough manly man of a man!


----------



## Whig_Out

Rottweiler said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact this whole gun control thing is a reverse post hoc argument.
> 
> "By banning or confiscating guns in regards to gun violence, you will therefore avoid gun violence."
> 
> Sigh, such fallacious thinking. Chicago should be a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "should" be? Chicago _is_ a prime example. As is cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, marijuana, rape, prostitution, sex-slaves, molestation, child-trafficking, child pornography, stabbing, theft, robbery, arson, embezzlement, tax evasion, organized crime, assault, battery, domestic violence, MURDER...... it's endless. All of it outlawed, and all of it still happening.
> 
> Yet ignorant asshates like CCJ think they can "outlaw" gun violence out of existence. Really? And the 3,000 other examples (murder, rape, etc.) which are outlawed and still occur daily are what - anomalies that won't happen with guns?
> 
> Jesus, these Dumbocrats are so fuck'n stupid it actually gives me chills. No wonder they need to live off of government.
Click to expand...


Everyone should praise this poster.  Only person who can use Jesus and Dumbocrats in the same sentence and make it look classy.  What a friend.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice!  Been there; done that.
> 
> As for the "answer"; as it was back on page 3 or whenever...
> 
> You do to guns what you did to cigarettes; make them cost prohibitive and the rate of consumption goes down.  Eventually the availability dries up.
> 
> Also, on the enforcement end, you make crimes where a gun was introduced federal crimes or at least give federal-type sentences (long sentences, no parole, mandatory minimums) and you get rid of the thugs or the thugs move on to something less lethal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because cigarettes have dried up?!?!
Click to expand...

Usage is down.  332-206.



Rottweiler said:


> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!



You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun.  You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime.  You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime.  You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever.  Murder doesn't have to be involved.

332-206.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.


----------



## candycorn

Pogo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
> 
> There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
> 
> There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it.  On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
> 
> Congratulations.  You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted.  For all the world to see.
> 
> Dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...
> 
> Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you _did_ say. Gee, I wonder why _that_ is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun *problem*" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I said is right there in the post, shit-for-brains.  You don't get to inject your own content.
Click to expand...


Its the only page in Rotten's playbook; take the other side's argument to the ridiculous extreme.  See it coming a mile away.


----------



## candycorn

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, are you stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant Dumbocrat pissed that they can't dispute the facts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of packing their kids a lunch, mom's all across your world would pack them a piece.
Click to expand...


Dressing them in Kevlar school uniforms...  

Look at the Middle East....the answer to violence is NEVER more violence.  It's a 2,000 year old example


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.
Click to expand...


Violence has nothing to do with guns, it is people who have no value for the lives and property of others. Guns are nothing but tools, just like hammers and screwdrivers, all can do good things and all can kill. People like you make me want to go out and buy a few more guns.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violence has nothing to do with guns, it is people who have no value for the lives and property of others. Guns are nothing but tools, just like hammers and screwdrivers, all can do good things and all can kill. People like you make me want to go out and buy a few more guns.
Click to expand...


For once you're right. 

Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Rottweiler said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One clarification here.  As the freedom loving American I know that you are, you are referring to on public property, correct? Private owners should have the right to make whatever rules they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I wouldn't tell a person what he can or can't allow on his own property. However a private business open to the public i.e. restaurants, stores, theaters....etc should not be designated gun free zones. They only exception I would make is bars and clubs where the majority of the business is selling alcohol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fiercely disagree here LL. If a person owns a business, who are we to tell them what they can and can't do with that business? If the owner is an idiot liberal (not likely to happen anyway considering how dumb liberals are) who wants to ban guns and create a victim zone, that's there business. You and I have the freedom to not patron that victim zone (and we won't). Furthermore, those are the places which will experience the mass shootings and they will be put out of business from that anyway.
> 
> You don't have to hang Dumbocrats LL - just give them the freedom to hang themselves. It's just like here on USMB. They have the freedom to speak and all they do is expose their ignorance and contradict themselves. Not only would we be doing them a favor by silencing them, but we'd be despicable hypocrites like them. The freedom we scream about includes their freedom as well. And the beauty of freedom is that it allows idiots such as Dumbocrats to implode.
Click to expand...


The government tells businesses what they can or cannot do all the time and I've never heard anyone here complain.

I think guns carried by lawful citizens should be allowed in any business that caters to the public. And luckily here in Texas you can in most places excluding bars but including the State Capitol.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> The government tells businesses what they can or cannot do all the time and I've never heard anyone here complain.







Lonestar_logic said:


> I think guns carried by lawful citizens should be allowed in any business that caters to the public. And luckily here in Texas you can in most places excluding bars but including the State Capitol.



It's my property.  I pay for it.  Even now I have the right to tell anyone who does not behave according to my standards to leave, and I have the right to have them arrested if they return for trespassing.  So you are actually going to strip more private property rights away then we have now.  I pay the lease, it's ridiculous that I cannot say who can go on my property and what they are allowed to do.  Now if they stay off my property, then sure, it's not my say any longer.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence has nothing to do with guns, it is people who have no value for the lives and property of others. Guns are nothing but tools, just like hammers and screwdrivers, all can do good things and all can kill. People like you make me want to go out and buy a few more guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
Click to expand...


What you said is not what Texas said.  So if you were in the theater in aurora, the schools in Columbine, Blacksburg or Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard ... when the shooting started, you'd seriously think thank God no one but the shooter has a gun, that isn't the way to prevent violence...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant Dumbocrat pissed that they can't dispute the facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of packing their kids a lunch, mom's all across your world would pack them a piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dressing them in Kevlar school uniforms...
> 
> Look at the Middle East....the answer to violence is NEVER more violence.  It's a 2,000 year old example
Click to expand...


Yet you don't have any solution other than rather than removing legal guns by banning them, we remove them with punitive taxes.   There is no difference between those, when legal guns dry up criminals will simply buy illegal ones.  You know, like kids buy all the pot they want now.

When you have a solution instead of just restating the obvious, that we all would like violence to go away, then let us know.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.
Click to expand...


And the most murders are in the areas with the strictest gun laws.  The facts don't match leftists ideology, then again, they never do.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other society on earth but instead of having no crime, we are among the most violent of all advanced societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the most murders are in the areas with the strictest gun laws.  The facts don't match leftists ideology, then again, they never do.
Click to expand...


Just admit it, you need your guns because you've lost control of your society. Total Massive Breakdown. It's PREPPER TIME!!!!


----------



## OKTexas

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Violence has nothing to do with guns, it is people who have no value for the lives and property of others. Guns are nothing but tools, just like hammers and screwdrivers, all can do good things and all can kill. People like you make me want to go out and buy a few more guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said is not what Texas said.  So if you were in the theater in aurora, the schools in Columbine, Blacksburg or Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard ... when the shooting started, you'd seriously think thank God no one but the shooter has a gun, that isn't the way to prevent violence...
Click to expand...


Actually that's exactly what I said. Violence will occur with or without guns if people aren't taught to respect the lives and property of others. It starts in our homes and schools and it's been lacking for the past several decades because candy assed liberals believe in coddling and drugging kids that can't behave.  Teaching discipline and respect have to start early and reenforced throughout childhood and into adolescence. That's how we address the violence in our society, by reversing the trends the libs have been pushing for more than 40 years.


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is not what Texas said.  So if you were in the theater in aurora, the schools in Columbine, Blacksburg or Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard ... when the shooting started, you'd seriously think thank God no one but the shooter has a gun, that isn't the way to prevent violence...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's exactly what I said. Violence will occur with or without guns if people aren't taught to respect the lives and property of others. It starts in our homes and schools and it's been lacking for the past several decades because candy assed liberals believe in coddling and drugging kids that can't behave.  Teaching discipline and respect have to start early and reenforced throughout childhood and into adolescence. That's how we address the violence in our society, by reversing the trends the libs have been pushing for more than 40 years.
Click to expand...


We should take the guns you nuts want to give teachers and pistol whip anyone who talks during homeroom.  

That'll show em.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said is not what Texas said.  So if you were in the theater in aurora, the schools in Columbine, Blacksburg or Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard ... when the shooting started, you'd seriously think thank God no one but the shooter has a gun, that isn't the way to prevent violence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's exactly what I said. Violence will occur with or without guns if people aren't taught to respect the lives and property of others. It starts in our homes and schools and it's been lacking for the past several decades because candy assed liberals believe in coddling and drugging kids that can't behave.  Teaching discipline and respect have to start early and reenforced throughout childhood and into adolescence. That's how we address the violence in our society, by reversing the trends the libs have been pushing for more than 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should take the guns you nuts want to give teachers and pistol whip anyone who talks during homeroom.
> 
> That'll show em.
Click to expand...


No need, a good swat on the ass works just as well.


----------



## hunarcy

candycorn said:


> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.



Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.


----------



## hunarcy

candycorn said:


> We should take the guns you nuts want to give teachers and pistol whip anyone who talks during homeroom.
> 
> That'll show em.



Reductio ad absurdums are stupid time wasters that doesn't advance an argument


----------



## candycorn

hunarcy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
Click to expand...


So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?


----------



## TemplarKormac

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
Click to expand...


Yeah there should. That innocent person should be able to defend themselves in the same manner. With a gun. It's as simple as that.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

It's how child rapists lure children into a car with candy.

The Progressives lure the masses with their candy too, but insist they cannot possess any means of self defense...


----------



## candycorn

TemplarKormac said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah there should. That innocent person should be able to defend themselves in the same manner. With a gun. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
Click to expand...


More absurd BS because you have nothing left.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there should. That innocent person should be able to defend themselves in the same manner. With a gun. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?
Click to expand...


Damn, now you're sounding like a child, setting new standards for the ridiculous.


----------



## TemplarKormac

candycorn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there should. That innocent person should be able to defend themselves in the same manner. With a gun. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? Did any of that gibberish make any sense to you?


----------



## candycorn

OKTexas said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there should. That innocent person should be able to defend themselves in the same manner. With a gun. It's as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, now you're sounding like a child, setting new standards for the ridiculous.
Click to expand...


The answer from you guys is constant vigilance and being able to defend yourself.  Apparently anyone who gets shot is responsible for because they didn't shoot the other guy first.  

It's ridiculous to think that guns make you safer given the statistics.  It's also ridiculous that we expect the victims of gun violence to simply budget for the assault without any built-in system to compensate those who are wrongly shot.  

Call me names all you wish...it's all you got left.


----------



## Publius1787

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Publius1787 said:


> Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?



As evidenced by Joe's citations of a flawed study way back in this thread, no. The only plan is "take the guns."


----------



## Pogo

Publius1787 said:


> Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?



The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
Click to expand...


Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.
Click to expand...


No it's not, but that's not ad hom.  I didn't even name a person.  The subject of the sentence is _argument_.  I made no judgement on the person who presented it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, but that's not ad hom.  I didn't even name a person.  The subject of the sentence is _argument_.  I made no judgement on the person who presented it.
Click to expand...


A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means  to "attack the source."


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, but that's not ad hom.  I didn't even name a person.  The subject of the sentence is _argument_.  I made no judgement on the person who presented it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means  to "attack the source."
Click to expand...


Uh-- no, it doesn't.  It means "argument to the (hu)man".  (*hom*imen / *hom*o sapiens)

Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, now you're sounding like a child, setting new standards for the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer from you guys is constant vigilance and being able to defend yourself.  Apparently anyone who gets shot is responsible for because they didn't shoot the other guy first.
> 
> It's ridiculous to think that guns make you safer given the statistics.  It's also ridiculous that we expect the victims of gun violence to simply budget for the assault without any built-in system to compensate those who are wrongly shot.
> 
> Call me names all you wish...it's all you got left.
Click to expand...


Do you really want to go there, holding society liable for the actions of individuals, what about the people who are victims of the knockout game, should we compensate them, or people who have their car stolen and crashed in a high speed chase? I could keep going but then I would be acting just as absurd as you.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work.   Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side.   Now, do YOU have anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.
> 
> And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered this question.  Read the OP.  We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands.  Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.
> 
> And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution.  We support a liberty solution.
> 
> And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.
Click to expand...


Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.
> 
> And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this question.  Read the OP.  We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands.  Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.
> 
> And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution.  We support a liberty solution.
> 
> And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.
Click to expand...


"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
Click to expand...


And yet you can't answer it.  You did say you want to change the gun culture, but you can't answer how to do that either.  I'm waiting for that one, how you're going to get ganstas & red necks & gun collectors & sportsmen & hunters & hobbyists to say wow, guns, eew...

So what's your plan?


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, but that's not ad hom.  I didn't even name a person.  The subject of the sentence is _argument_.  I made no judgement on the person who presented it.
Click to expand...


True, but that was probably your first post that wasn't ad hominem in the discussion...


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, but that's not ad hom.  I didn't even name a person.  The subject of the sentence is _argument_.  I made no judgement on the person who presented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means  to "attack the source."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-- no, it doesn't.  It means "argument to the (hu)man".  (*hom*imen / *hom*o sapiens)
> 
> Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.
Click to expand...


Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue the point? That's funny, all liberals do is attack the person, the point and not the argument.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, now you're sounding like a child, setting new standards for the ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer from you guys is constant vigilance and being able to defend yourself.  Apparently anyone who gets shot is responsible for because they didn't shoot the other guy first.
> 
> It's ridiculous to think that guns make you safer given the statistics.  It's also ridiculous that we expect the victims of gun violence to simply budget for the assault without any built-in system to compensate those who are wrongly shot.
> 
> Call me names all you wish...it's all you got left.
Click to expand...


If we allow people to defend themselves, that's blaming them if they do not successfully do it.  That argument sounded good to you.

So BTW, you're to blame by your logic for every gun death that happens now.  The police drawing lines around victims and making a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it isn't working, there are still gun deaths.  So since that's your solution and you say if your solution doesn't work ever then you're to blame.  By your logic, every murder in this country is your personal fault.

What a stupid argument, grow up.


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means  to "attack the source."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- no, it doesn't.  It means "argument to the (hu)man".  (*hom*imen / *hom*o sapiens)
> 
> Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue my point?
Click to expand...


He's the one who argued that when I said he called me female he said I was a liar because he didn't use the word female, he called me "she."  He's the one who says the op is stupid because the right solution is to change the gun culture, but he has no plan to accomplish that.  He's the one who says he isn't calling me names when he calls me "Cousin It."

Dude, he's here to mince words.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this question.  Read the OP.  We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands.  Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.
> 
> And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution.  We support a liberty solution.
> 
> And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
Click to expand...


Arms are not bullets, you're doing what's known as "wishful thinking".


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms are not bullets, you're doing what's known as "wishful thinking".
Click to expand...


What you talking about, willis.

You're delusional.  Of course bullets are arms.  And not allowing people to buy them would clearly be infringing on their right to bear arms.  And clearly they did not mean that people could have guns but not bullets.  You're not good at word parsing, give this one up.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arms are not bullets, you're doing what's known as "wishful thinking".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you talking about, willis.
> 
> You're delusional.  Of course bullets are arms.  And not allowing people to buy them would clearly be infringing on their right to bear arms.  And clearly they did not mean that people could have guns but not bullets.  You're not good at word parsing, give this one up.
Click to expand...


Arms aren't even necessarily guns, you could be armed with a bow and arrow. A baseball bat...


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means  to "attack the source."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- no, it doesn't.  It means "argument to the (hu)man".  (*hom*imen / *hom*o sapiens)
> 
> Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue the point? That's funny, all liberals do is attack the person, the point and not the argument.
Click to expand...


Look TK, yer fuckin' wrong, you posted a Latin translation that's outright bullshit, *man up and admit it*.  Jesus Christ on a frickin' bicycle!

What the fuck is wrong with you, dood?  _Defend_ your misapplication of logical fallacy for which you offer a bullshit translation nobody's ever come up with before.  Holy shit that's dishonest.  And then doubling down with a blanket statement too?

Worst post ever, TK.  Fix that or don't waste my time.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you can't answer it.  You did say you want to change the gun culture, but you can't answer how to do that either.  I'm waiting for that one, how you're going to get ganstas & red necks & gun collectors & sportsmen & hunters & hobbyists to say wow, guns, eew...
> 
> So what's your plan?
Click to expand...


I've told you throughout this sorryass thread, Kazzin It, your question is inoperative.  That's why you're not getting an answer.  Have you stopped beating your wife/husband/SO of indeterminate gender?  Answer that.

Longest thread ever that goes absolutely nowhere.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-- no, it doesn't.  It means "argument to the (hu)man".  (*hom*imen / *hom*o sapiens)
> 
> Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue my point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's the one who argued that when I said he called me female he said I was a liar because he didn't use the word female, he called me "she."  He's the one who says the op is stupid because the right solution is to change the gun culture, but he has no plan to accomplish that.  He's the one who says he isn't calling me names when he calls me "Cousin It."
> 
> Dude, he's here to mince words.
Click to expand...


Your ARE a liar.  You posted a bunch of shit attributed to me, when I called you on it you couldn't produce it, and later you shifted to acknowledge what I actually did say.  You don't have an honest bone in your indeterminate gender body.  And now you've got TK getting in the mud with you, posting absolute horseshit and blaming it on "liberals".

Dishonest scumbuckets like you make me puke.


----------



## candycorn




----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


>



i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs
Click to expand...


And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, but that's not ad hom.  I didn't even name a person.  The subject of the sentence is _argument_.  I made no judgement on the person who presented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means  to "attack the source."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-- no, it doesn't.  It means "argument to the (hu)man".  (*hom*imen / *hom*o sapiens)
> 
> Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.
Click to expand...


Bam!  More negative rep.  There is no clearer way to tell me I'm getting under your bitch ass skin.  Thank you, very much.



What a shemale.  You don't have the gonads to express yourself with words other than your playground schick, so you lash out in the only way you can.  Negative rep  Ooohhh...

Who gives a crap about rep point totals?  I appreciate getting them from people to let me know they like what I wrote.  But accumulating points?  I guess in your loserdom life, it's all you got.

It's also a way to show that no matter how many times you post on the thread, you have no answer for the OP.  You have no plan.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.
Click to expand...


The NRA is about gun safety.  And they do an outstanding job.

So have you worked out your plan yet to change pro-gun attitudes?  What about a public service announcement?  Say a bunch of gansta's are sitting around listening to polka and playing jacks and one of their homeys comes in and says look, a gun.  The rest look disgusted and say wow, dude, guns are so out, haven't you heard the good word?  They they all shun him.  He looks at the camera and cries.

I think that would change some minds.  Don't you think?


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


>



You did an outstanding job with that.  No one shooting back once.  Well done, you maximized the carnage and then Obama was able to look disgusted on TV and advocate more government power.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is stupid.
> 
> Not your question; I mean the OP question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you can't answer it.  You did say you want to change the gun culture, but you can't answer how to do that either.  I'm waiting for that one, how you're going to get ganstas & red necks & gun collectors & sportsmen & hunters & hobbyists to say wow, guns, eew...
> 
> So what's your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told you throughout this sorryass thread, Kazzin It, your question is inoperative.  That's why you're not getting an answer.  Have you stopped beating your wife/husband/SO of indeterminate gender?  Answer that.
> 
> Longest thread ever that goes absolutely nowhere.
Click to expand...


Do you have a plan to accomplish your goal is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question?  LOL.  You are a hoot even if you are a point whore.  Glad I could give you some positive rep to prop up your self esteem.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is about gun safety.  And they do an outstanding job.
> 
> So have you worked out your plan yet to change pro-gun attitudes?  What about a public service announcement?  Say a bunch of gansta's are sitting around listening to polka and playing jacks and one of their homeys comes in and says look, a gun.  The rest look disgusted and say wow, dude, guns are so out, haven't you heard the good word?  They they all shun him.  He looks at the camera and cries.
> 
> I think that would change some minds.  Don't you think?
Click to expand...

The NRA helped destroy the US with gun frenzy, making everyone so paranoid that they all feel the need to be packing 24/7. Americans are actually safer in Afghanistan.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is about gun safety.  And they do an outstanding job.
> 
> So have you worked out your plan yet to change pro-gun attitudes?  What about a public service announcement?  Say a bunch of gansta's are sitting around listening to polka and playing jacks and one of their homeys comes in and says look, a gun.  The rest look disgusted and say wow, dude, guns are so out, haven't you heard the good word?  They they all shun him.  He looks at the camera and cries.
> 
> I think that would change some minds.  Don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA helped destroy the US with gun frenzy, making everyone so paranoid that they all feel the need to be packing 24/7. Americans are actually safer in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


The NRA is a responsible organization that has done endless work for gun safety and for the rights of crime victims.   The rest is just leftists sanctimony.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is about gun safety.  And they do an outstanding job.
> 
> So have you worked out your plan yet to change pro-gun attitudes?  What about a public service announcement?  Say a bunch of gansta's are sitting around listening to polka and playing jacks and one of their homeys comes in and says look, a gun.  The rest look disgusted and say wow, dude, guns are so out, haven't you heard the good word?  They they all shun him.  He looks at the camera and cries.
> 
> I think that would change some minds.  Don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA helped destroy the US with gun frenzy, making everyone so paranoid that they all feel the need to be packing 24/7. Americans are actually safer in Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The NRA is a responsible organization that has done endless work for gun safety *and for the rights of crime victims.   The rest is just leftists sanctimony.
Click to expand...


Then why is no one safe from guns in the US?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA helped destroy the US with gun frenzy, making everyone so paranoid that they all feel the need to be packing 24/7. Americans are actually safer in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The NRA is a responsible organization that has done endless work for gun safety *and for the rights of crime victims.   The rest is just leftists sanctimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why is no one safe from guns in the US?
Click to expand...


So if the NRA helps responsible gun owners learn to use their guns safely and fights for their right to be armed like criminals who would attack them, then they are responsible for all gun violence in the United States...


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The NRA is a responsible organization that has done endless work for gun safety *and for the rights of crime victims.   The rest is just leftists sanctimony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is no one safe from guns in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the NRA helps responsible gun owners learn to use their guns safely and fights for their right to be armed like criminals who would attack them, then they are responsible for all gun violence in the United States...
Click to expand...


Which country do the criminals' guns come from mostly?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why is no one safe from guns in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the NRA helps responsible gun owners learn to use their guns safely and fights for their right to be armed like criminals who would attack them, then they are responsible for all gun violence in the United States...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which country do the criminals' guns come from mostly?
Click to expand...


How many pygmies can fit in a Volkswagen Beetle?


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the NRA helps responsible gun owners learn to use their guns safely and fights for their right to be armed like criminals who would attack them, then they are responsible for all gun violence in the United States...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which country do the criminals' guns come from mostly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many pygmies can fit in a Volkswagen Beetle?
Click to expand...


Most if not all their guns are American made, proving once again that gun laws are too lax.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which country do the criminals' guns come from mostly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many pygmies can fit in a Volkswagen Beetle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all their guns are American made, proving once again that gun laws are too lax.
Click to expand...


How does it prove that?


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many pygmies can fit in a Volkswagen Beetle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all their guns are American made, proving once again that gun laws are too lax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it prove that?
Click to expand...


Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all their guns are American made, proving once again that gun laws are too lax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it prove that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.
Click to expand...


They can get any firearms they want, including foreign made. Most firearms on the black market are stolen or smuggled in.You have no links to firearms makers in the US or Firearms sellers.

Now if you REALLY want firearms you can get about 3000 from the ATF supported by Obama and Holder.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all their guns are American made, proving once again that gun laws are too lax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it prove that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.
Click to expand...


No kidding, this whole thread is based on that.  That wasn't the question.  How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax?  Read the op.


----------



## hunarcy

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once you're right.
> 
> Guns have nothing to do with preventing violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
Click to expand...


If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.


----------



## whitehall

Did I say it before? Every mass shooter in modern times was a democrat.


----------



## candycorn

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.
Click to expand...


Not sure of course but I would bet that the parents of the kids that bring guns to schools are often overheard decrying the limp-wristed liberals who have no idea how to raise kids.


----------



## candycorn

hunarcy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do they cause violence.  As such, if you have a problem with crime, you should focus on finding anti-violence solutions, and stop worry about firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
Click to expand...


Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00.  Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc...  If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.  

Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.


----------



## Spoonman

candycorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure of course but I would bet that the parents of the kids that bring guns to schools are often overheard decrying the limp-wristed liberals who have no idea how to raise kids.
Click to expand...


limp wristed liberal gun laws solve no problems.  gun violence rests squarely on your shoulders


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00.  Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc...  If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
> 
> Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
Click to expand...


So do Rape victims get reimbursed? How about burglary victims? Perhaps you can name the pay out for assault and battery victims? How about pick pocket victims?

Just name for us the pay out that Government does for other crimes committed by private citizens?


----------



## hunarcy

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00.  Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc...  If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
> 
> Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
Click to expand...


Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible.  If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else.  [sarcasm intentional]


----------



## candycorn

hunarcy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00.  Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc...  If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
> 
> Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible.  If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else.  [sarcasm intentional]
Click to expand...


So again, if you get shot, it's your fault?  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## OKTexas

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when an innocent person gets shot, there should be no recourse built into the system except to sue the shooter for compensation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If negligent behavior caused the shooting, then filing criminal charges on the shooter and then civil action would be appropriate...if negligence was involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00.  Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc...  If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
> 
> Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
Click to expand...


You dodged this question earlier in the thread. So you do think society should be liable for the actions of individuals? Now that is established what are the compensation parameters? Do we compensate the victims of drunk or uninsured drivers, or like I mentioned earlier, people who are victims of the knockout game or robbery or should I go on and get really ridiculous. Come on what should people in every freaking category of victim hood receive from society and please be very specific so we can see your prejudiced in advance.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did an outstanding job with that.  *No one shooting back* once.  Well done, you maximized the carnage and then Obama was able to look disgusted on TV and advocate more government power.
Click to expand...



^^ There's your whole problem in four words.




Let me guess... you still don't get it.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Did I say it before? Every mass shooter in modern times was a democrat.




This guy?

This one?

This one was out to kill liberals and Democrats... 

This one targeted a specific Democrat, which he shot along with 18 others...

This one was stopped on his way to do a shooting for Glenn Beck's agenda and instead had a shootout with police...

This Beckhead too turned his guns on police, killing 3 of them...

It would appear that utterly you're full of shit.
That's nothing new but this one needs some kind of superlative.

The actual truth is that most of these wackjobs go off as a result of their personal problems at work, being attached by IRS, marital arguments, being emasculated and isolated at work and/or school, and/or the weird psychoactive drugs they're taking.  Personal stuff, not political.

Retarded scumbag asshole cocksuckers like you who would try to make a cheap political division point on the backs of innocent shooting victims should be made into a reality show where you're forced to eat your own shit on national television.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Let me guess... you still don't get it.



A picture would help, can you draw me one with some of your crayons?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> i see gun laws are still failing.   good work libs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see gun culture is still thriving.  Good work NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not sure* of course but I would bet that the parents of the kids that bring guns to schools are often overheard decrying the limp-wristed liberals who have no idea how to raise kids.
Click to expand...


Yep.... that _really_ sums it up nicely.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're in the hospital for a few months, the assailant (if caught) is in jail earning $0.00.  Likely we're not talking about a hedge fund manager as the perp to start with so good luck getting your cab fare to the hospital in the judgment much less your medical bills, pain, suffering, etc...  If you're really unlucky, you're the spouse/parent of someone who goes through all of that then passes away.
> 
> Hence the need to have something built into the system to reimburse the wounded and killed and their families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible.  If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else.  [sarcasm intentional]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, if you get shot, it's your fault?  Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...


It depends CC. In _most_ cases (such as Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado, etc.) it's the fault of Dumbocrats who create victim zones for the carnage pleasure of societies maniacs.

In _some_ cases, it was the fault of the person who got shot for not taking the necessary precautions. You and you alone are responsible for your security (and therein lies the problem - Dumbocrats refuse to accept personal responsibility). Not society. Not law enforcement. You.


----------



## Pogo

Buttsoiler's vision of how the world works:






[​
Yeah, good thinking asshole.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> Buttsoiler's vision of how the world works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [​
> Yeah, good thinking asshole.



Retard you have nothing so you post idiotic pictures from dumb asses.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun.  You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime.  You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime.  You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever.  Murder doesn't have to be involved.
Click to expand...


Again, if capital punishment can't deter people from murdering, how do you figure that "federal crime" of 10 years will deter someone from using a gun? 

Please tell me this is an act CC. Nobody could be _this_ stupid. Nobody.

233-200


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun.  You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime.  You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime.  You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever.  Murder doesn't have to be involved.
Click to expand...


Oh - and one more thing CC. By your "logic", all we need to do is make cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, LSD, PCP, rape, assault, domestic violence, battery, and prostitution a "federal crime" and none of them will ever occur again, right?

I mean, sure, the death penalty doesn't stop people from committing murder. But a 10 year sentence? Well hot damn is _that_ going to deter people! 

233-200


----------



## Politico

The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it. If you can't figure that out maybe someone will explain it to you.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it prove that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding, this whole thread is based on that.  That wasn't the question.  How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax?  Read the op.
Click to expand...


Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.


----------



## P@triot

Politico said:


> The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it. If you can't figure that out maybe someone will explain it to you.



Then making guns a 10 year offense won't deter people because they are "shielded from it". If _you_ can't figure that _out_, maybe someone will explain it to you junior...

Oh - and by the way - Mr. McGuire here _vehemently_ disagrees with you (and he knows _way_ more about capital punishment than you do junior). Turns out, he wasn't so "shielded" from it as you claim. 

Executed Killer Dennis McGuire Gasped And Snorted For 15 Minutes Under New Lethal Drug Combo


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, this whole thread is based on that.  That wasn't the question.  How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax?  Read the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.
Click to expand...


That's akin to saying there are "too many loopholes in the cocaine laws". There are no loopholes, it is completely outlawed - yet cocaine is still rampant. And you can't explain that and are too immature to admit it. So instead you make snarky comments and run away because you we've proven you are wrong and you _know_ it.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals can easily obtain American made guns. Very easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, this whole thread is based on that.  That wasn't the question.  How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax?  Read the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.
Click to expand...


You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute.  Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention?  What do we DO about it?

How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer.  When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding, this whole thread is based on that.  That wasn't the question.  How does that guns are generally made by American manufacturers mean that gun laws are too lax?  Read the op.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute.  Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention?  What do we DO about it?
> 
> How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer.  When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.
Click to expand...


No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute.  Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention?  What do we DO about it?
> 
> How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer.  When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because when you need to draw your firearm, the murderous thug will gladly wait as you punch in your "access code".... 

It never ceases to truly amaze me how Dumbocrats are happy to play "expert" on subjects they are _completely_ ignorant of.

If you can't stop the black market from supplying cocaine and prostitution, how can you be so incredibly ignorant as to believe you can stop it from supplying guns?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute.  Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention?  What do we DO about it?
> 
> How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer.  When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because when you need to draw your firearm, the murderous thug will gladly wait as you punch in your "access code"....
> 
> It never ceases to truly amaze me how Dumbocrats are happy to play "expert" on subjects they are _completely_ ignorant of.
> 
> If you can't stop the black market from supplying cocaine and prostitution, how can you be so incredibly ignorant as to believe you can stop it from supplying guns?
Click to expand...

You could punch the code in as you leave your house, geez, you're not very bright, are you? but if it's stolen... they couldn't use it.

Drugs are made and sold by evildoers. Guns are made and sold by supposedly law-abiding Americans who should want to help, instead of just making as much money as they can by practically selling anything to anyone.


----------



## candycorn

Pogo said:


> Buttsoiler's vision of how the world works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [​
> Yeah, good thinking asshole.



Pretty much.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, people are responsible for their actions and they need to be the ones held responsible.  If they can't pay, the taxpayers can make it up the same way you insist they make up everything else.  [sarcasm intentional]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So again, if you get shot, it's your fault?  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends CC. In _most_ cases (such as Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado, etc.) it's the fault of Dumbocrats who create victim zones for the carnage pleasure of societies maniacs.
> 
> In _some_ cases, it was the fault of the person who got shot for not taking the necessary precautions. You and you alone are responsible for your security (and therein lies the problem - Dumbocrats refuse to accept personal responsibility). Not society. Not law enforcement. You.
Click to expand...


So democrats are always at fault unless it's the victims?    And the "good" parents who let the kids assemble an arsenal and bring it to school?  Democrats as well?  

That sound you hear is your argument falling apart.


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun.  You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime.  You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime.  You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever.  Murder doesn't have to be involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if capital punishment can't deter people from murdering, how do you figure that "federal crime" of 10 years will deter someone from using a gun?
> 
> Please tell me this is an act CC. Nobody could be _this_ stupid. Nobody.
> 
> 233-200
Click to expand...


Capital punishment isn't a deterrent for numerous reasons.  Serious jail time for what a bunch of thugs see as minor crime is a different kettle of fish.  Now if you break into someone's house and brandish a firearm, you're gone for a round number of years.  That simple armed robbery is now a one way ticket to a federal pen.    

Actaully, you're living proof that stupidity knows no bounds.   

332-206.  Scoreboard


----------



## candycorn

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and murder is a felony which carries with it capital punishment (that would be the DEATH PENALTY for you Dumbocrats). If being killed isn't a deterrent, why do you think "federal-type sentences" would be"?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it a federal crime (no parole) for any crime involving a gun.  You rob a 7-Eleven with a gun, federal crime.  You tell the cashier you have a gun but don't brandish it; federal crime.  You're gone for the full 10 years or whatever.  Murder doesn't have to be involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh - and one more thing CC. By your "logic", all we need to do is make cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, LSD, PCP, rape, assault, domestic violence, battery, and prostitution a "federal crime" and none of them will ever occur again, right?
> 
> I mean, sure, the death penalty doesn't stop people from committing murder. But a 10 year sentence? Well hot damn is _that_ going to deter people!
> 
> 233-200
Click to expand...


There is a correlation between consequences and actions.  You're right the death penalty is no deterrent as has been proven over and over.  But sentences for lesser crimes are often reduced by parole and over-crowding. You don't have that in Federal Prison.  

332-206.  Scoreboard.


 
  
 
​


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many loopholes in the gun laws that criminals can drive a getaway car through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute.  Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention?  What do we DO about it?
> 
> How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer.  When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.
Click to expand...


OK, Dude, the op addresses that.  You are doing the pot solution.  Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep arguing a point that is not in dispute.  Why don't you read the op and address the point that is in contention?  What do we DO about it?
> 
> How exactly does your plan to disarm citizens and do nothing about the criminals make us safer.  When you want to stop begging the question and address the issue, let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, Dude, the op addresses that.  You are doing the pot solution.  Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.
Click to expand...


It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Dude, the op addresses that.  You are doing the pot solution.  Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?
Click to expand...


OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.

So let's compare that to pot.

Straw purchases - pot - not legal

Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now

Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now

Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.

So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Dude, the op addresses that.  You are doing the pot solution.  Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
Click to expand...


  Good.  Very good.

Now *take the next step*_._...

If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it.  If anything it makes it more popular.

So how would you do it?

You'd eliminate the _desire_, that's how.  You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in.  You'd spread the word about the negative sides.  When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation.  You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.

Take the example of tobacco.  It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting.  We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents.  We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable.  That's a *cultural* shift.  A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.

Apply that to gun violence.  Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post.  Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.

There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia.  *People* do that en masse.  When the people lead, all those institutions follow.  They have no other choice.  It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".

I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values.  We are a culture of death.  *That* is what needs to change.  The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity.  Once it is, gun violence goes _*way*_ down.

That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death.  And that presumption is absurd.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Dude, the op addresses that.  You are doing the pot solution.  Read ... the ... OP ... and address the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
Click to expand...

Comparing getting high to getting killed?


----------



## Pogo

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparing getting high to getting killed?
Click to expand...


That too.  False comparison.

But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.

We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire).  Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem.  Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.

Now we _did_ take that approach to drunk _driving_.  It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be.  Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the _public_.

If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing getting high to getting killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That too.  False comparison.
> 
> But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.
> 
> We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire).  Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem.  Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.
> 
> Now we _did_ take that approach to drunk _driving_.  It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be.  Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the _public_.
> 
> If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.
Click to expand...


Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing getting high to getting killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That too.  False comparison.
> 
> But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.
> 
> We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire).  Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem.  Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.
> 
> Now we _did_ take that approach to drunk _driving_.  It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be.  Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the _public_.
> 
> If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.
Click to expand...


You would have us believe firearm violence has been _reduced_?

Bullshit.

And take a reading lesson.  I didn't say it _eliminated_ these things.  That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic.  *That's* the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.

If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.  Very good.
> 
> Now *take the next step*_._...
> 
> If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it.  If anything it makes it more popular.
> 
> So how would you do it?
> 
> You'd eliminate the _desire_, that's how.  You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in.  You'd spread the word about the negative sides.  When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation.  You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.
> 
> Take the example of tobacco.  It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting.  We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents.  We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable.  That's a *cultural* shift.  A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.
> 
> Apply that to gun violence.  Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post.  Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.
> 
> There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia.  *People* do that en masse.  When the people lead, all those institutions follow.  They have no other choice.  It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".
> 
> I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values.  We are a culture of death.  *That* is what needs to change.  The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity.  Once it is, gun violence goes _*way*_ down.
> 
> That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death.  And that presumption is absurd.
Click to expand...


Those aren't mutually exclusive.  I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work.  People should be able to defend themselves.  They should.

Tobacco is a good point to bring up.   In the late eighties, my wife and I came home every night with our hair, clothing, stinking of cigarettes.  And we didn't smoke.  If other people want to do stupid things that's fine, but we wanted the right to not smoke.  So did the majority.

I'm not sure I see it parlaying cleanly to drugs or guns.  You only associate guns with violence, but I see that as a minor use.  I see it primarily as sporting, hunting and collecting.  And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns.  So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan.   And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It asks what's my plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands. I just gave you a bunch of things to try. What's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparing getting high to getting killed?
Click to expand...


How does this apply to the discussion?  You need to just make your liberal snarky ignorant comments on their own and not quote me as if it's relevant to anything we are discussing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> No straw purchases, no gun show purchases, making everyone who buys a gun personally responsable for how it gets used, even if stolen (which means you didn't secure it properly in the first place, maybe even an access code on guns that only the owner knows, only sell certain amount of ammo, stop selling assault weapons... Lots of things to try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because when you need to draw your firearm, the murderous thug will gladly wait as you punch in your "access code"....
> 
> It never ceases to truly amaze me how Dumbocrats are happy to play "expert" on subjects they are _completely_ ignorant of.
> 
> If you can't stop the black market from supplying cocaine and prostitution, how can you be so incredibly ignorant as to believe you can stop it from supplying guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could punch the code in as you leave your house, geez, you're not very bright, are you? but if it's stolen... they couldn't use it.
> 
> Drugs are made and sold by evildoers. Guns are made and sold by supposedly law-abiding Americans who should want to help, instead of just making as much money as they can by practically selling anything to anyone.
Click to expand...


It never ceases to amaze me, how people with sufficient intellectual means to type, are incapable of valid reasoning.  

Making money is how we sustain ourselves.  

If they planted gun seeds and toiled in the fields, nurturing their Guns, using some for themselves and trading the rest to others who had 'grown' other stuff they needed to survive and to help make life more enjoyable, would your argument change in the slightest?

NO!  You're argument would remain the same, it just wouldn't be as easy to deceive others, because most of us eat.

So let's dispatch this nonsense of 'its the money'.

Now, guns are a tool.  And that's all they are.  

They are a highly effective means to destroying other animals that threaten you or the innocent within your immediate presence.  

Like ANY OTHER TOOL, they're misused.

So the issue now comes to what is the best way to ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO NOT MISUSE and ABUSE THEIR TOOLS?

Reason requires that there is no way to _stop_ abuse.  Just as there is no way to stop disease, or accidents.  So we're left to consider ways which will promote the fewest incidences of abuse as is possible.

So let's compare the locations with the most abuse per capita, with the lowest.

The highest rate of abuse is found in population centers governed by Collectivists.  Collectivism rests in Relativism. 

Relativism rejects objectivity which is essential to truth, trust, morality and justice.

Those who do not adhere to objective truth, are not trustworthy.

Those who are untrustworthy are prone to criminal behavior.

Therefore, Collectivism; Progressivism (Fascism, Crony Capitalism), Liberalism, Socialism, Communism PRODUCE MORE CRIMINALS.

The Lowest rate of abuse is in small town USA, where people govern themselves, through the adherence to natural law, the golden rule and largely through the tenets of Judea-Christianity.  

Judea-Christianity observes and otherwise adheres to objective reason.  

Those who reason objectively, recognize truth, thus are worthy of trust, and tend to be empathetic to others, bearing their right sustaining responsibilities, declared in American Principle.

American principle therefore, produce STARKLY FEWER CRIMINALS!

So the best means to get guns out of the hands of criminals is to: PRODUCE FEWER CRIMINALS and the best means to produce fewer criminals is to adhere to American Principle, thus rejecting Collectivism.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so with no straw purchases, making people responsible if their gun is stolen and limiting assault weapons and ammo, sure every kid can get all the pot they want even though pot is illegal, but it's your contention that addresses that bam, then criminals won't be able to get guns.  And in your view, the op is answered.
> 
> So let's compare that to pot.
> 
> Straw purchases - pot - not legal
> 
> Making people resposible if their pot is stolen - pot is illegal now
> 
> Limiting assault weapons - well, let's compare this to harder drugs, they are illegal now
> 
> Limiting ammo - pot, paraphernaila, all of it is illegal now.
> 
> So you did not address the op, you proposed no more than we do for drugs. So now it's your job to explain why what does not work for drugs will in fact work for guns.  That is the question by the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  Very good.
> 
> Now *take the next step*_._...
> 
> If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it.  If anything it makes it more popular.
> 
> So how would you do it?
> 
> You'd eliminate the _desire_, that's how.  You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in.  You'd spread the word about the negative sides.  When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation.  You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.
> 
> Take the example of tobacco.  It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting.  We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents.  We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable.  That's a *cultural* shift.  A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.
> 
> Apply that to gun violence.  Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post.  Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.
> 
> There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia.  *People* do that en masse.  When the people lead, all those institutions follow.  They have no other choice.  It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".
> 
> I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values.  We are a culture of death.  *That* is what needs to change.  The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity.  Once it is, gun violence goes _*way*_ down.
> 
> That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death.  And that presumption is absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't mutually exclusive.  I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work.  People should be able to defend themselves.  They should.
Click to expand...


_What_ aren't mutually exclusive?  What's "those"?  I'm citing a single fundamental there, not two.



kaz said:


> Tobacco is a good point to bring up.   In the late eighties, my wife and I came home every night with our hair, clothing, stinking of cigarettes.  And we didn't smoke.  If other people want to do stupid things that's fine, but we wanted the right to not smoke.  So did the majority.
> 
> I'm not sure I see it parlaying cleanly to drugs or guns.  You only associate guns with violence, but I see that as a minor use.  I see it primarily as sporting, hunting and collecting.



"Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent.  Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.  I associate guns with violence because that *is* their whole purpose.  They're invented for war.  That's why we call them "arms".  So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public.  As if they were the enemy in a war.



kaz said:


> And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns.  So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan.   And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.



Of course it isn't identical in its nature; cannabis even less so.  That's not my point.  The point is what drives people as a whole (a culture) to accept or reject a given behaviour.  ANY behaviour.  I'm looking at a very very basic level.  The fact that we have a culture that glorifies guns and death and violence in general feeds this issue.  THAT is a starting point.

Here's another point I've been making throughout my time here: the Klebods and Harrises and Loughners and Lanzas and Holmses, all those guys, are not out for purpose of murder.  They're out for *carnage*.  That's an important distinction.  You can murder people with a knife or a baseball bat or an envelope laced with ricin.  You can mass murder with a bomb.  But those don't deliver carnage, the visual feedback of watching your victims frantically run for their lives, fall in their tracks and ooze blood.  I submit that is their purpose, and only a gun delivers that.  And those images have been generated by violent media, including self-feeding stories of the last guy's carnage (e.g. Lanza's obsession with gun slaughter before he went on his own).  Video games deliver carnage, but it's virtual.  Attach a sufficiently self-distraught mind to the same image, let him figure out that a firearm in his hands can be his ticket to inflicting exactly that kind of carnage in reality, and then act surprised when he does just that.

That guy is so beaten down in his own mind, that it's worth sacrificing his own life, as long as he gets the satisfaction of that carnage in revenge before he goes.

That's exactly why we see the pattern of the powerless, the picked-on, the alienated, the downtrodden, the frustrated, as noted earlier.  It's a general revenge on random humans for the perception that 'the world is against me'.  Who the victims are doesn't matter; what matters is the orgasm of slaughter.  Only a gun can deliver that kind of orgasm.  It's not an act of murder any more than rape is an act of sex; it's an act of power.  And if it's not crystal clear that it's an act of frustrated power, consider that all of these shooters are male.

And it's fueled by the values that want to sell the idea that the answer to violence is more violence, "might makes right", and that the answer to your gun is that my gun is bigger.

That's a fool's quest.  There's no way it ends well, and every way it gets worse.  That's why I keep ranting that this attitude is only digging us deeper.  And as the old Texas proverb says, when you find yourself in a hole, the thing to do is _quit diggin_'.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> "Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility


True for the literal act of collecting.  I have a collection.  I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war.  However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself.  I am not collecting to sell and make money.  I plan to die with my collection.



Pogo said:


> target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent.


Yes, they can, but convince shooters of that.  Shooting such as skeet or trap is a lot more fun.



Pogo said:


> Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.


LOL, so are you a vegetarian?  I know so many liberals who say this and eat meat.  BTW, I am a vegetarian.  But not because I am morally against meat, it's just that I have been since 1997 and I like the diet better.



Pogo said:


> I associate guns with violence because that *is* their whole purpose.  They're invented for war.  That's why we call them "arms".  So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public.  As if they were the enemy in a war.


Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan,  guns, hunting, shooting are part of life.  No one is pretending to shoot people.  In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  Very good.
> 
> Now *take the next step*_._...
> 
> If you wanted to eradicate, to use this example, recreational cannabis use, legislation doesn't do it.  If anything it makes it more popular.
> 
> So how would you do it?
> 
> You'd eliminate the _desire_, that's how.  You'd make it an unattractive pastime to engage in.  You'd spread the word about the negative sides.  When the public desire is not there, you don't need legislation.  You need it technically to apply some controls, but you go in knowing those controls act only as a remedy after the fact, not as a deterrent.
> 
> Take the example of tobacco.  It was once cool, almost mandatory for an adult who wanted to appear successful. Now it's more a scourge of stink that nobody wants around-- more or less depending on the individual setting.  We're not there yet, still working on it, but we've made significant dents.  We made those inroads not because smoking is banned, but because it's undesirable.  That's a *cultural* shift.  A cultural shift doesn't eliminate anything from possibility; it just pushes it to the societal fringe so that it's no longer epidemic.
> 
> Apply that to gun violence.  Stop glorifying guns in every movie, every TV show, every child's toy, every NRA ad and every internet message board post.  Get over the illusion that we live in a war zone under the law of the jungle, get away from the culture of death and promote a culture of life.
> 
> There's no single entity that does that -- not government, not media, not corporatia.  *People* do that en masse.  When the people lead, all those institutions follow.  They have no other choice.  It doesn't start with some distant authority; it starts with "me".
> 
> I'll say again what I've been saying forever: we don't have a problem of legislation; we have a problem of spiritual values.  We are a culture of death.  *That* is what needs to change.  The fact that there are 300 million firearms in this country should be seen as an absurdity.  Once it is, gun violence goes _*way*_ down.
> 
> That's why I keep telling you your OP asks the wrong question: it assumes this culture of death is a given and can only be met with more death.  And that presumption is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't mutually exclusive.  I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work.  People should be able to defend themselves.  They should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _What_ aren't mutually exclusive?  What's "those"?  I'm citing a single fundamental there, not two.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tobacco is a good point to bring up.   In the late eighties, my wife and I came home every night with our hair, clothing, stinking of cigarettes.  And we didn't smoke.  If other people want to do stupid things that's fine, but we wanted the right to not smoke.  So did the majority.
> 
> I'm not sure I see it parlaying cleanly to drugs or guns.  You only associate guns with violence, but I see that as a minor use.  I see it primarily as sporting, hunting and collecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent.  Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.  I associate guns with violence because that *is* their whole purpose.  They're invented for war.  That's why we call them "arms".  So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public.  As if they were the enemy in a war.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns.  So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan.   And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it isn't identical in its nature; cannabis even less so.  That's not my point.  The point is what drives people as a whole (a culture) to accept or reject a given behaviour.  ANY behaviour.  I'm looking at a very very basic level.  The fact that we have a culture that glorifies guns and death and violence in general feeds this issue.  THAT is a starting point.
> 
> Here's another point I've been making throughout my time here: the Klebods and Harrises and Loughners and Lanzas and Holmses, all those guys, are not out for purpose of murder.  They're out for *carnage*.  That's an important distinction.  You can murder people with a knife or a baseball bat or an envelope laced with ricin.  You can mass murder with a bomb.  But those don't deliver carnage, the visual feedback of watching your victims frantically run for their lives, fall in their tracks and ooze blood.  I submit that is their purpose, and only a gun delivers that.  And those images have been generated by violent media, including self-feeding stories of the last guy's carnage (e.g. Lanza's obsession with gun slaughter before he went on his own).  Video games deliver carnage, but it's virtual.  Attach a sufficiently self-distraught mind to the same image, let him figure out that a firearm in his hands can be his ticket to inflicting exactly that kind of carnage in reality, and then act surprised when he does just that.
> 
> That guy is so beaten down in his own mind, that it's worth sacrificing his own life, as long as he gets the satisfaction of that carnage in revenge before he goes.
> 
> That's exactly why we see the pattern of the powerless, the picked-on, the alienated, the downtrodden, the frustrated, as noted earlier.  It's a general revenge on random humans for the perception that 'the world is against me'.  Who the victims are doesn't matter; what matters is the orgasm of slaughter.  Only a gun can deliver that kind of orgasm.  It's not an act of murder any more than rape is an act of sex; it's an act of power.  And if it's not crystal clear that it's an act of frustrated power, consider that all of these shooters are male.
> 
> And it's fueled by the values that want to sell the idea that the answer to violence is more violence, "might makes right", and that the answer to your gun is that my gun is bigger.
> 
> That's a fool's quest.  There's no way it ends well, and every way it gets worse.  That's why I keep ranting that this attitude is only digging us deeper.  And as the old Texas proverb says, when you find yourself in a hole, the thing to do is _quit diggin_'.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  The best way to stop people from owning and using firearms to defend themselves from threats against their lives and well being, is to advocate for a sound, objectively reasoned, sustainable culture.  

To do that, one must advocate for objectively reasoned, sound principle.  

To do that one must oppose subjectively reasoned contests to sound principle.

Which is where we are here and now.  

The Problem is that those who lack the means to reason objectively, cannot find the objectivity to recognize the fatal flaw in their reasoning and hold themselves accountable to CHANGE THEIR PERSPECTIVE.

Which, sadly, is the purpose of war.   Thus represents the valid need for firearms and why surrendering the tool and therein forfeiting the right, by setting aside the responsibility to own and be proficient in the principles of use, is a very VERY foolish thing to do.

I mean we live in a culture wherein people who bray incessantly about population control, declare themselves the right to murder the most innocent of human life.  This as a means to specifically AVOID having to recognize their responsibilities in PROCREATION!  Which is a first class example of INSANITY.  

There's little hope of  keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Because this culture has been redesigned to CREATE CRIMINALS!


----------



## Politico

Rottweiler said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it. If you can't figure that out maybe someone will explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then making guns a 10 year offense won't deter people because they are "shielded from it". If _you_ can't figure that _out_, maybe someone will explain it to you junior...
> 
> Oh - and by the way - Mr. McGuire here _vehemently_ disagrees with you (and he knows _way_ more about capital punishment than you do junior). Turns out, he wasn't so "shielded" from it as you claim.
> 
> Executed Killer Dennis McGuire Gasped And Snorted For 15 Minutes Under New Lethal Drug Combo
Click to expand...


I knew you were too stupid to get it. Neg returned dumbass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That too.  False comparison.
> 
> But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.
> 
> We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire).  Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem.  Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.
> 
> Now we _did_ take that approach to drunk _driving_.  It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be.  Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the _public_.
> 
> If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have us believe firearm violence has been _reduced_?
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> And take a reading lesson.  I didn't say it _eliminated_ these things.  That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic.  *That's* the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.
> 
> If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.
Click to expand...


Yes I would, and I have the link to prove it.  

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Violence, 1993-2011

69 percent decrease in nonfatal firearms crimes. From 1993.


----------



## OKTexas

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have us believe firearm violence has been _reduced_?
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> And take a reading lesson.  I didn't say it _eliminated_ these things.  That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic.  *That's* the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.
> 
> If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I would, and I have the link to prove it.
> 
> Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Violence, 1993-2011
> 
> 69 percent decrease in nonfatal firearms crimes. From 1993.
Click to expand...


Seriously, you trying to make his head explode? He can't deal with facts, they interfere with his fantasy world.


----------



## kaz

Politico said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The death penalty doesn't deter people because they are shielded from it
> 
> 
> 
> Then making guns a 10 year offense won't deter people because they are "shielded from it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew you were too stupid to get it
Click to expand...


How is his point not valid?  You are saying in the end that no one who's going to kill someone with a gun is contemplating the death penalty at that moment.  He's saying well, they aren't thinking about guns laws either.  It seems spot on.

Seriously, you think that if someone's going to rob a bank or hijack a car or shoot their boss, they are seriously thinking "Oh crap, a gun could get me in trouble..."


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility
> 
> 
> 
> True for the literal act of collecting.  I have a collection.  I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war.  However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself.  I am not collecting to sell and make money.  I plan to die with my collection.
Click to expand...


And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either.  That's my point.



kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, so are you a vegetarian?  I know so many liberals who say this and eat meat.  BTW, I am a vegetarian.  But not because I am morally against meat, it's just that I have been since 1997 and I like the diet better.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.

Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing.  And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land.  But none of these are the topic here.  



kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I associate guns with violence because that *is* their whole purpose.  They're invented for war.  That's why we call them "arms".  So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public.  As if they were the enemy in a war.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan,  guns, hunting, shooting are part of life.  No one is pretending to shoot people.  In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.
Click to expand...


Know who has never shot anyone?  People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.

Don't know what I'm talking about?  Show me how guns were _not_ invented for the purpose of making war.


----------



## Pogo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't mutually exclusive.  I said government needs to stop trying to ban guns, it doesn't work.  People should be able to defend themselves.  They should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _What_ aren't mutually exclusive?  What's "those"?  I'm citing a single fundamental there, not two.
> 
> 
> 
> "Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) but none of those are violent.  Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is.  I associate guns with violence because that *is* their whole purpose.  They're invented for war.  That's why we call them "arms".  So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public.  As if they were the enemy in a war.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't see how you turn criminals against guns.  So I like the idea, but I don't see the plan.   And while tobacco is a reasonable data point, it's not a sufficient argument in itself, there are too many differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it isn't identical in its nature; cannabis even less so.  That's not my point.  The point is what drives people as a whole (a culture) to accept or reject a given behaviour.  ANY behaviour.  I'm looking at a very very basic level.  The fact that we have a culture that glorifies guns and death and violence in general feeds this issue.  THAT is a starting point.
> 
> Here's another point I've been making throughout my time here: the Klebods and Harrises and Loughners and Lanzas and Holmses, all those guys, are not out for purpose of murder.  They're out for *carnage*.  That's an important distinction.  You can murder people with a knife or a baseball bat or an envelope laced with ricin.  You can mass murder with a bomb.  But those don't deliver carnage, the visual feedback of watching your victims frantically run for their lives, fall in their tracks and ooze blood.  I submit that is their purpose, and only a gun delivers that.  And those images have been generated by violent media, including self-feeding stories of the last guy's carnage (e.g. Lanza's obsession with gun slaughter before he went on his own).  Video games deliver carnage, but it's virtual.  Attach a sufficiently self-distraught mind to the same image, let him figure out that a firearm in his hands can be his ticket to inflicting exactly that kind of carnage in reality, and then act surprised when he does just that.
> 
> That guy is so beaten down in his own mind, that it's worth sacrificing his own life, as long as he gets the satisfaction of that carnage in revenge before he goes.
> 
> That's exactly why we see the pattern of the powerless, the picked-on, the alienated, the downtrodden, the frustrated, as noted earlier.  It's a general revenge on random humans for the perception that 'the world is against me'.  Who the victims are doesn't matter; what matters is the orgasm of slaughter.  Only a gun can deliver that kind of orgasm.  It's not an act of murder any more than rape is an act of sex; it's an act of power.  And if it's not crystal clear that it's an act of frustrated power, consider that all of these shooters are male.
> 
> And it's fueled by the values that want to sell the idea that the answer to violence is more violence, "might makes right", and that the answer to your gun is that my gun is bigger.
> 
> That's a fool's quest.  There's no way it ends well, and every way it gets worse.  That's why I keep ranting that this attitude is only digging us deeper.  And as the old Texas proverb says, when you find yourself in a hole, the thing to do is _quit diggin_'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.  The best way to stop people from owning and using firearms to defend themselves from threats against their lives and well being, is to advocate for a sound, objectively reasoned, sustainable culture.
> 
> To do that, one must advocate for objectively reasoned, sound principle.
> 
> To do that one must oppose subjectively reasoned contests to sound principle.
> 
> Which is where we are here and now.
> 
> The Problem is that those who lack the means to reason objectively, cannot find the objectivity to recognize the fatal flaw in their reasoning and hold themselves accountable to CHANGE THEIR PERSPECTIVE.
> 
> Which, sadly, is the purpose of war.   Thus represents the valid need for firearms and why surrendering the tool and therein forfeiting the right, by setting aside the responsibility to own and be proficient in the principles of use, is a very VERY foolish thing to do.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you're saying the existence of war "validates" gun violence.  Take a step back: you're assuming war itself is valid.  That's not a safe assumption and I don't accept it.



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I mean *we live in a culture wherein people who bray incessantly about population control, declare themselves the right to murder the most innocent of human life*.  This as a means to specifically AVOID having to recognize their responsibilities in PROCREATION!  Which is a first class example of INSANITY.



No we don't.  Eugenics pretty much died with World War II.  And it also sounds like you're saying not procreating is irresponsible, which is also a little weird.  We do however live in a culture that celebrates death and violence, from our common sporting events and everyday TV/movie/gaming entertainment to our dominant religion that hangs a man to suffer in helpless agony on a cross.  That's a death mentality, and as long as that's our value, the idea of grabbing your AR-15 and mowing down the population of a school is not going to seem all that far out.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan,  guns, hunting, shooting are part of life.  No one is pretending to shoot people.  In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.



I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles.  People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people.  None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades.  Could they kill a person?  Sure.  Why do they not?  Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them.  Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored. 

I am not special.  There are LITERALLY millions of people like me.  Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly.  The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions.  I have no respect for their ideas.


----------



## Pogo

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan,  guns, hunting, shooting are part of life.  No one is pretending to shoot people.  In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles.  People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people.  None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades.  Could they kill a person?  Sure.  Why do they not?  Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them.  Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.
> 
> I am not special.  There are LITERALLY millions of people like me.  Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly.  The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions.  I have no respect for their ideas.
Click to expand...


I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played.  That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.

Duh.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Collecting" is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility
> 
> 
> 
> True for the literal act of collecting.  I have a collection.  I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war.  However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself.  I am not collecting to sell and make money.  I plan to die with my collection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either.  That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.
> 
> Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing.  And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land.  But none of these are the topic here.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I associate guns with violence because that *is* their whole purpose.  They're invented for war.  That's why we call them "arms".  So what we're talking about in the issue of gun violence is the use of this instrument against innocent people in the general public.  As if they were the enemy in a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan,  guns, hunting, shooting are part of life.  No one is pretending to shoot people.  In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know who has never shot anyone?  People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.
> 
> Don't know what I'm talking about?  Show me how guns were _not_ invented for the purpose of making war.
Click to expand...





> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.



You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) _but none of those are violent._ _*Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."  *_

Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Pogo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's because you don't know what you're talking about.  I grew up outside Kalamazoo "kaz", Michigan,  guns, hunting, shooting are part of life.  No one is pretending to shoot people.  In fact, the whole objective is not shooting anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles.  People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people.  None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades.  Could they kill a person?  Sure.  Why do they not?  Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them.  Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.
> 
> I am not special.  There are LITERALLY millions of people like me.  Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly.  The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions.  I have no respect for their ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played.  That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.
> 
> Duh.
Click to expand...


Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't _not_ make them implements their respective purposes.  However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.

The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.


----------



## hunarcy

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles.  People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people.  None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades.  Could they kill a person?  Sure.  Why do they not?  Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them.  Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.
> 
> I am not special.  There are LITERALLY millions of people like me.  Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly.  The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions.  I have no respect for their ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played.  That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't _not_ make them implements their respective purposes.  However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.
> 
> The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.
Click to expand...


The fact that the guy obviously didn't read the post and instead chose to make some inane comment justifies his existence on my ignore list.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have us believe firearm violence has been _reduced_?
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> And take a reading lesson.  I didn't say it _eliminated_ these things.  That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic.  *That's* the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.
> 
> If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I would, and I have the link to prove it.
> 
> Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Violence, 1993-2011
> 
> 69 percent decrease in nonfatal firearms crimes. From 1993.
Click to expand...


Ohh Pogo I see you ignored the fact I proved your statement absolutely wrong and the fact that in the last 20 years crimes with firearms has been reduced by 67 percent.  All the while firearm ownership has been going up, concealed carry is increasing as is open carry.


----------



## P@triot

Gun shows have never been a significant source of guns for criminals. Under President Clinton the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of eighteen thousand state prison inmates in 1997. Fewer than *1%* of inmates (0.7 percent) who said they had a gun reported that theyd obtained it from a gun show.

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. Control. Threshold Editions. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11


----------



## P@triot

a National Academy of Sciences commission already has taken a hard look at the data. During the final days of the Clinton administration this panel reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications, along with some of its own empirical work on firearms and violence. Their 2004 report was not able to identify a _single_ gun control regulation (for example, background checks, gun buybacks, assault weapon bans, limits on gun sales, regulating gun dealers) that clearly reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. Control. Threshold Editions. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Where did Pogo go?


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True for the literal act of collecting.  I have a collection.  I'm the oldest on both sides of the family and have guns that go back to the civil war.  However, collectors that I know do generally like the item itself.  I am not collecting to sell and make money.  I plan to die with my collection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either.  That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.
> 
> Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing.  And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land.  But none of these are the topic here.
> 
> 
> Know who has never shot anyone?  People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.
> 
> Don't know what I'm talking about?  Show me how guns were _not_ invented for the purpose of making war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) _but none of those are violent._ _*Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."  *_
> 
> Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.
Click to expand...


No, it's not.  It's actually the opposite -- a contrast.  "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence.  Neither applies to the function of the instrument.  Hunting, by contrast, does.

Where's the *value judgement* then?  Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion.   It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.

After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass.  The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Where did Pogo go?



Keep yer pants on Sarge.  Pogo had stuff to do.  And now his Eggplant Parmigiana says it's ready.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either.  That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.
> 
> Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian FWIW but it's got nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with food processing.  And dietary ingestion judgments and efficient use of land.  But none of these are the topic here.
> 
> 
> Know who has never shot anyone?  People without guns. Ask The Dick Cheney.
> 
> Don't know what I'm talking about?  Show me how guns were _not_ invented for the purpose of making war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) _but none of those are violent._ _*Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."  *_
> 
> Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It's actually the opposite -- a contrast.  "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence.  Neither applies to the function of the instrument.  Hunting, by contrast, does.
> 
> Where's the *value judgement* then?  Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion.   It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.
> 
> After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass.  The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.
Click to expand...


You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.

Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.


----------



## Pogo

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own several handguns, several shotguns and a couple of rifles.  People like that guy think the only purpose for them is to kill people.  None of my weapons have killed another human and I can say that because I bought them new and have owned them for decades.  Could they kill a person?  Sure.  Why do they not?  Because I'm not a criminal and criminals for the most part seem to avoid me so I don't have to defend myself from them.  Once, my house was burglarized, but none of my weapons were taken because they were securely stored.
> 
> I am not special.  There are LITERALLY millions of people like me.  Yet, the Left feels I should be punished because of the actions of a few people who don't follow the rules of society and don't behave responsibly.  The Left is made up of foolish people who don't want to hold people responsible for their own actions.  I have no respect for their ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played.  That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't _not_ make them implements their respective purposes.  However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.
> 
> The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.
Click to expand...


Once again you're arguing in oppositeland.  What you've lain out is the opposite of what we're saying.

Lunacy says that because he has guns that have never shot anyone, that can't be what they're designed for.  I gave an example of why that argument is full of shit.  Design is design.  An instrument is designed for its purpose; shooting people, playing music, grinding coffee, whatever.  Not using it for that purpose doesn't change what it's *designed* to do.  What you're illustrating is using the instrument for _other_ purposes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple of musical instruments I've never played.  That doesn't make them NOT instruments that were designed to make music.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, a wet floor sign isn't designed to kill someone, but it CAN be used to kill someone. Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs, not human skulls, but hey, that doesn't _not_ make them implements their respective purposes.  However, there's always a chance someone will find a rolling pin lying around on the kitchen counter and beat the daylights (and the life) out of someone. Heck, we could go as far as to say that a sharpened pencil could be an instrument of death... or an instrument of knowledge. Just because someone doesn't use those things as weapons a la carnage, doesn't make them not implements for which someone can use to kill someone else.
> 
> The list goes on. The possibilities are endless. Heck, you could even take the strap off of a backpack and use it as a garrote! That is the inherent flaw in your argument, Pogo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you're arguing in oppositeland.  What you've lain out is the opposite of what we're saying.
> 
> Lunacy says that because he has guns that have never shot anyone, that can't be what they're designed for.  I gave an example of why that argument is full of shit.  Design is design.  An instrument is designed for its purpose; shooting people, playing music, grinding coffee, whatever.  Not using it for that purpose doesn't change what it's *designed* to do.  What you're illustrating is using the instrument for _other_ purposes.
Click to expand...


Civilian firearms are not designed to kill people. In fact in the west one can argue that most military firearms are not designed to kill either. They are designed to incapacitate.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said and I quote: "Collecting is a passive act that has nothing to do with an object's utility; target practice (sporting) can be done throwing a ball or a frisbee (or a golf club, etc) _but none of those are violent._ _*Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is."  *_
> 
> Is this not a stab at moral equivalency, Pogo? Upon further review, both of the player's feet were in bounds, interception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It's actually the opposite -- a contrast.  "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence.  Neither applies to the function of the instrument.  Hunting, by contrast, does.
> 
> Where's the *value judgement* then?  Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion.   It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.
> 
> After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass.  The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.
> 
> Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.
Click to expand...


Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden.  Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K?  And they posted before you did.  Get back in line.

I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested).  But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.  It's actually the opposite -- a contrast.  "Collecting" is a false equivalence; "Sporting" is a false equivalence.  Neither applies to the function of the instrument.  Hunting, by contrast, does.
> 
> Where's the *value judgement* then?  Kazzin It made this into a false equivalence, calling it a "moral" conclusion.   It's false because I didn't present any such judgement; we're just defining terms of what a gun is used for.
> 
> After further review, play stands as called, incomplete pass.  The receiver was not even in the ballpark, let alone in bounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.
> 
> Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden.  Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K?  And they posted before you did.  Get back in line.
> 
> I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested).  But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.
Click to expand...


Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring my call out of your ignorant claim that less crime with firearms is the fact and has been for 20 years. 67% less non fatal firearm crimes over the last 20 years. 7000 less murders.
> 
> Crime is going down not up as firearms increase and laws are relaxed across the Country to allow concealed carry and open carry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden.  Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K?  And they posted before you did.  Get back in line.
> 
> I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested).  But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.
Click to expand...


OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?

This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, doesn't the world revolve around you all of a sudden.  Guess what Homer, there are other posters in this thread, K?  And they posted before you did.  Get back in line.
> 
> I haven't looked into your link (truth to tell I'm not really interested).  But if your point is that gun violence is already diminishing, then this point has no thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?
> 
> This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...
Click to expand...


You claimed that firearm crimes had not decreased and that I was full of Bullshit for saying more firearms equals less crime. But then you know that and are trying now to change the subject.

It is simple, you believe we need less firearms in the Country because you claim we have an epidemic of violence.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are responding to people AFTER my link and this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?
> 
> This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed that firearm crimes had not decreased and that I was full of Bullshit for saying more firearms equals less crime. But then you know that and are trying now to change the subject.
> 
> It is simple, you believe we need less firearms in the Country because you claim we have an epidemic of violence.
Click to expand...


Bzzt.

Again, here's the question.  You posted:


> ... this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.



-- So what did I say about laws?  And to include this last post, where did I say we need "less [sic] firearms"?  (it would be _fewer_, not 'less')

C'mon, I don't have all night.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Btw I claimed nothing about "firearm crimes".


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Evelyn Wood --- what did I say about these laws?
> 
> This oughta be good... nothing like rolling on assumptions instead of reading the thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed that firearm crimes had not decreased and that I was full of Bullshit for saying more firearms equals less crime. But then you know that and are trying now to change the subject.
> 
> It is simple, you believe we need less firearms in the Country because you claim we have an epidemic of violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bzzt.
> 
> Again, here's the question.  You posted:
> 
> 
> 
> ... this threads point is that more laws do not work are not needed and a false claim by you and the rest that parrot them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- So what did I say about laws?  And to include this last post, where did I say we need "less [sic] firearms"?  (it would be _fewer_, not 'less')
> 
> C'mon, I don't have all night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw I claimed nothing about "firearm crimes".
Click to expand...


So clear it up, tell us right now you do not think reducing the number of firearms available to all citizens is what is needed. Tell us that you were wrong when you stated violence has not gone down as firearms ownership went up.

Be specific. Tell us your open rants AGAINST firearms are just a misunderstanding.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That too.  False comparison.
> 
> But still the common general psychology of behavior-modification-by-legislation is useful.
> 
> We should have learned this from Prohibition; banning didn't work since nothing was done to address the cultural value (the desire).  Without that modification, bootlegging thrived; prohibition failed and was rescinded, and today we still have an alcoholism problem.  Had they taken the approach of making drunkenness a stupid thing to do, they would have had a lot more success.
> 
> Now we _did_ take that approach to drunk _driving_.  It still happens but it's a lot less common than it used to be.  Not so much because it's not tolerated by law (that's part of it) but because it's not tolerated by the _public_.
> 
> If you want to get something done, that's where the power is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have us believe firearm violence has been _reduced_?
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> And take a reading lesson.  I didn't say it _eliminated_ these things.  That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic.  *That's* the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.
> 
> If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.
Click to expand...


Your words. You stated firearm violence has not gone down by telling me I was full of bullshit saying it had gone down.

Further you made the claim that there was an epidemic and that it was out of control. The facts are clear, what you claimed is simply not the facts.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking and drunk driving are no where near gone. Sure to some extent they have been reduced. But so has firearm violence. Your claim does not hold water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have us believe firearm violence has been _reduced_?
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> And take a reading lesson.  I didn't say it _eliminated_ these things.  That's not even possible. I said it backs them down from being epidemic.  *That's* the problem; not that it exists but that it's out of control.
> 
> If you don't think it's out of control, I want some of those mushrooms you're smoking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your words. You stated firearm violence has not gone down by telling me I was full of bullshit saying it had gone down.
> 
> Further you made the claim that there was an epidemic and that it was out of control. The facts are clear, what you claimed is simply not the facts.
Click to expand...


And you said "firearm _*crimes*_".  Which I guess is what your link went to.
Violence; crimes.  Know the difference.

Here's a timeline you can scroll.

And here's a report on just the last year and a half:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXAF_9KUjgo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXAF_9KUjgo[/ame]

Doesn't look like much of a "decline" to me.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## Spoonman

gun violence is down in the USA.   Since Clinton's assault weapons ban was ended, the rate has dropped every year.    in fact the rate US gun violence is dropping is equal to or greater than the rates in any country that has enacted gun bans


----------



## Bumberclyde

Spoonman said:


>



Then he got shot.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either.  That's my point.


And people don't do things like target practice or hunt for the purpose of shooting anyone either.



Pogo said:


> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.



Let's go to the video tape



Pogo said:


> Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is



Touchdown, two point conversion.



Pogo said:


> Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian


LOL, half vegetarian.  That's like being half pregnant.  Dude, if you eat meat, you are not half vegetarian, you are NOT vegetarian.  Vegetarians don't eat meat.

And so we have it.  Hunters are making their animals into a "victim."  You're civilized.  Other people kill your food for you, carve it up, and you get your animal flesh in nice little plastic wrapped packages as if it's not an animal that you're eating.  But for someone to shoot their own food, oh, unsavory.



Pogo said:


> Don't know what I'm talking about?  Show me how guns were _not_ invented for the purpose of making war.



They are used for collecting, hunting, sporting (skeet, trap, ...) as well as self defense.  None of those were war.  The original purpose is irrelevant, so I'm not going to research that for you.  Your argument is the equivalent that Teflon was invented for space, which proves that it's not used in cookware.  No, it doesn't.


----------



## skookerasbil

They banned guns in Australia a little while back and the damn country turned into a Jonestown virtually overnight as robberies went up 69%. But results don't matter to the far left.......its always always about the noble intentions. Fascinating.......the inability to connect the dots.


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet *I'm a half-vegetarian*
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, half vegetarian.  *That's like being half pregnant.  Dude, if you eat meat, you are not half vegetarian, you are NOT vegetarian.  Vegetarians don't eat meat.*
Click to expand...


"Half vegetarian"....      

In other words - he's an omnivore like _all_ humans....


----------



## KNB

Do any of you know what your guns are for?  "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".

Go down the list of how America is no longer free.  US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?


----------



## kaz

KNB said:


> Do any of you know what your guns are for?  "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".
> 
> Go down the list of how America is no longer free.  US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?



The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.

The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.

Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.

Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.


----------



## KNB

kaz said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you know what your guns are for?  "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".
> 
> Go down the list of how America is no longer free.  US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.
> 
> The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.
> 
> Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.
> 
> Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.
Click to expand...

And?  Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?

So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?


----------



## kaz

KNB said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you know what your guns are for?  "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".
> 
> Go down the list of how America is no longer free.  US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.
> 
> The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.
> 
> Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.
> 
> Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?  Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?
> 
> So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?
Click to expand...


The pen is mightier than than the sword, and the Internet rules them all.  I'm dong exactly that.


----------



## KNB

Yeah, your internet is stopping war crimes.  Good job.

By the way, the NSA is spying on you against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.  Isn't it ironic that gun lovers say that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your other rights, but here is a big tyrannical government violating the US Constitution so the brave gun-loving pussies hide behind their computers.

Because you cowardly pussies are the frontline of defense against government tyranny, then it's no wonder why the government has become so tyrannical.


----------



## kaz

KNB said:


> Yeah, your internet is stopping war crimes.  Good job.
> 
> By the way, the NSA is spying on you against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.  Isn't it ironic that gun lovers say that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your other rights, but here is a big tyrannical government violating the US Constitution so the brave gun-loving pussies hide behind their computers.
> 
> Because you cowardly pussies are the frontline of defense against government tyranny, then it's no wonder why the government has become so tyrannical.



War crimes?  Where did that come up in the conversation?   As for the rest, can you translate that from paranoid and delusional into English?



I recognize it's laced with sarcasm, but it's too incoherent to address.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're not collecting/keeping them for the purpose of shooting anyone either.  That's my point.
> 
> 
> 
> And people don't do things like target practice or hunt for the purpose of shooting anyone either.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.  I made no value judgement on the morals of hunting; you're tossing one in there.  I'm defining terms.  Out of bounds, incomplete pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go to the video tape
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is, just a difference of who the victim is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Touchdown, two point conversion.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation.  Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" _*means*_?  

I'm afraid you just ran the ball into your own end zone.  Not sure you even get a PAT when you do that.  I believe that's called a "safety".  And 2 points to me.  Again.  4 x 2 = 8.  Good game plan. 



kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I do hold ahimsa as a spiritual tenet I'm a half-vegetarian
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, half vegetarian.  That's like being half pregnant.  Dude, if you eat meat, you are not half vegetarian, you are NOT vegetarian.  Vegetarians don't eat meat.
Click to expand...


No shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which *you* brought up, not me).  If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother.  Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to.  There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.




kaz said:


> And so we have it.  Hunters are making their animals into a "victim."  You're civilized.  Other people kill your food for you, carve it up, and you get your animal flesh in nice little plastic wrapped packages as if it's not an animal that you're eating.  But for someone to shoot their own food, oh, unsavory.



I don't know if it's 'unsavory' or not; we were describing the function of a firearm.  I used "victim" because we don't have the word "shootee".  Dumbass.
Once again, I challenged you to show where the value judgement is; once again you failed.



Pogo said:


> Don't know what I'm talking about?  Show me how guns were _not_ invented for the purpose of making war.





kaz said:


> They are used for collecting, hunting, sporting (skeet, trap, ...) as well as self defense.  None of those were war.  The original purpose is irrelevant, so I'm not going to research that for you.  Your argument is the equivalent that Teflon was invented for space, which proves that it's not used in cookware.  No, it doesn't.



No, it isn't.  Now you're trying to compare a _material_ with an _instrument it's made from_?  

A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat.  But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting.  Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives.  Period.  I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it.  *Doesn't change what it's designed for.*

And just to entertain your bullshit logic, nor does it mean that the _material_ (wood, analagous to your teflon) was developed for any of these purposes.  That's absurd.

It's pretty clear you're not here for any kind of answers on the topic, even when such answers are offered.  You're just here to bullshit people with irrelevant tangents on vegetarianism and teflon.  That's why this thread is a waste of time; as soon as it threatens to go somewhere you're ready to shoot any answers down.

Enjoy your self-absorbed wankfest then.  It's a waste of time.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> Horseshit.  Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation.  Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" _*means*_?


So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment.  Seriously?



Pogo said:


> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which *you* brought up, not me).


Tangent?  You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim.  I was showing your hypocrisy.  It worked.

And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything.  It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."



Pogo said:


> If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother.  Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to.  There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.


OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."



Pogo said:


> A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat.  But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting.  Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives.  Period.  I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it.  *Doesn't change what it's designed for.*



Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was.  It matters what the user's intent is.  If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc.  It's fun.

If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah.  No one is into that, it's sick.   Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user.  Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs.  If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.

You just don't know what you're talking about.  And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening.  Your ignorance is willful.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation.  Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" _*means*_?
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment.  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which *you* brought up, not me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tangent?  You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim.  I was showing your hypocrisy.  It worked.
> 
> And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything.  It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother.  Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to.  There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat.  But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting.  Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives.  Period.  I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it.  *Doesn't change what it's designed for.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was.  It matters what the user's intent is.  If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc.  It's fun.
> 
> If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah.  No one is into that, it's sick.   Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user.  Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs.  If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.
> 
> You just don't know what you're talking about.  And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening.  Your ignorance is willful.
Click to expand...


He tries to use semantics to claim he is not against firearms. He seems afraid to admit what he means.


----------



## Pogo

kaz said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation.  Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" _*means*_?
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment.  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> I wasn't going to go into detail; I was simply accommodating your completely irrelevant tangent on vegetarianism (which *you* brought up, not me).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tangent?  You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim.  I was showing your hypocrisy.  It worked.
> 
> And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything.  It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you must know I simply don't eat anything that has a mother.  Not for that reason, but that's what it works out to.  There's a term for that; I don't know what it is and I don't really care so take your half-assed tangents and bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat.  But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting.  Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives.  Period.  I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it.  *Doesn't change what it's designed for.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was.  It matters what the user's intent is.  If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc.  It's fun.
> 
> If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah.  No one is into that, it's sick.   Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user.  Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs.  If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.
> 
> You just don't know what you're talking about.  And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening.  Your ignorance is willful.
Click to expand...


I just checked in to see if you suffered a moment of lucidity but once again you find yourself unable to deal with what I post and feel compelled to rewrite.  Obviously you have no clue how to engage in discussion honestly.   I've said nothing about "what anyone thinks".  You are a dishonest hack bent on nothing but contrarianism and when that fails, inserting words into others' mouths.  That's why you're thread is a failure. 

Enjoy your Peter Principle paean to self-indulgence.  Too wanky for me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation.  Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" _*means*_?
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment.  Seriously?
> 
> 
> Tangent?  You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim.  I was showing your hypocrisy.  It worked.
> 
> And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything.  It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."
> 
> 
> OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat.  But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting.  Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives.  Period.  I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it.  *Doesn't change what it's designed for.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was.  It matters what the user's intent is.  If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc.  It's fun.
> 
> If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah.  No one is into that, it's sick.   Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user.  Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs.  If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.
> 
> You just don't know what you're talking about.  And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening.  Your ignorance is willful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just checked in to see if you suffered a moment of lucidity but once again you find yourself unable to deal with what I post and feel compelled to rewrite.  Obviously you have no clue how to engage in discussion honestly.   I've said nothing about "what anyone thinks".  You are a dishonest hack bent on nothing but contrarianism and when that fails, inserting words into others' mouths.  That's why you're thread is a failure.
> 
> Enjoy your Peter Principle paean to self-indulgence.  Too wanky for me.
Click to expand...


firearm violence has dropped in the last 20 years by 69 percent murders are down by over 7000 a year and you still claim firearms are an epidemic of violence. And then you play semantics and try to pretend you are not for less firearms in society.

Pathetic indeed. Go ahead and run away.


----------



## kaz

Pogo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Four times I've asked where the value judgement is, and four times I've been read my own post back without explanation.  Do you people just not understand what the term "value judgement" _*means*_?
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't understand saying that hunting is equivalent to shooting people with the only difference being the "victim" is a value judgment.  Seriously?
> 
> 
> Tangent?  You said shooting animals is like shooting people, just a different victim.  I was showing your hypocrisy.  It worked.
> 
> And you brought up "half vegetarian" as if that meant anything.  It means nothing other than "not vegetarian."
> 
> 
> OK, but the term is not "vegetarian."
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A baseball bat can be used for clubbing somebody over the head, but nobody at Hillerich and Bradsby had that in mind when they made the bat.  But the original inventor/designer of that firearm, or its technological 'advance', contrived it for the purpose of warfare, or hunting.  Just as the developer of that baseball bat contrived it for the purpose of converting pitches into line drives.  Period.  I can collect that baseball bat and put it on the shelf; I can use it for kindling, or I can prop open a door with it.  *Doesn't change what it's designed for.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant what the original designer's intent was.  It matters what the user's intent is.  If I am skeet shooting, I am fantasizing about hitting nothing but a clay disc.  It's fun.
> 
> If in target shooting, hunting or even defense classes someone seriously said they were fantasizing about shooting people, they would be a pariah.  No one is into that, it's sick.   Other than snobby urban liberals, no one is more disgusted by the idea of shooting someone than a gun user.  Given what we are doing, the idea it could happen is a lot more real to us, and thus abhorant and to be avoided at all costs.  If I or most hunters were hunting in the woods, you would be as safe as strolling through a park.
> 
> You just don't know what you're talking about.  And when you talk to gun owners, all you do is tell us what we think rather than asking or even listening.  Your ignorance is willful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just checked in to see if you suffered a moment of lucidity but once again you find yourself unable to deal with what I post and feel compelled to rewrite.  Obviously you have no clue how to engage in discussion honestly.   I've said nothing about "what anyone thinks".  You are a dishonest hack bent on nothing but contrarianism and when that fails, inserting words into others' mouths.  That's why you're thread is a failure.
> 
> Enjoy your Peter Principle paean to self-indulgence.  Too wanky for me.
Click to expand...


So again, that actually sounds good to you?  You are actually eight, aren't you?


----------



## P@triot

KNB said:


> Do any of you know what your guns are for?  "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".
> 
> Go down the list of how America is no longer free.  US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?



Thank you for illustrating just how significantly the Dumbocrats have trampled on our 2nd Amendment rights....


----------



## P@triot

KNB said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you know what your guns are for?  "Being necessary to the security of a FREE state".
> 
> Go down the list of how America is no longer free.  US government's warrantless surveillance of Americans without cause or reason, US drone strikes on civilians including an American teenager without evidence, charges or trial, endless war started over proven lies, indefinite detentions without charges or trial, secret torture prisons, use of chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq and other assorted war crimes, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Now, Republicans, what is the 2nd Amendment for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.
> 
> The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.
> 
> Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.
> 
> Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?  Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?
> 
> So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?
Click to expand...


Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS, who not only don't have to prove anything or provide a warrant, but they can make you prove whatever they want.
> 
> The War on Drugs and all the rules in the name of finding drugs and on cash and reporting, again with no warrants.
> 
> Places like Waco and Ruby Ridge where government just flat out murdered citizens.
> 
> Government has plenty of it's own criminals, and they are definitely armed.
> 
> 
> 
> And?  Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?
> 
> So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.
> 
> So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?
Click to expand...


He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?  Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?
> 
> So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.
> 
> So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
Click to expand...


LOL, from the mouths of babes ... typically comes babble ... and this is no exception.

How you doing with the war on poverty?


----------



## hunarcy

KNB said:


> Yeah, your internet is stopping war crimes.  Good job.
> 
> By the way, the NSA is spying on you against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.  Isn't it ironic that gun lovers say that the 2nd Amendment is to protect your other rights, but here is a big tyrannical government violating the US Constitution so the brave gun-loving pussies hide behind their computers.
> 
> Because you cowardly pussies are the frontline of defense against government tyranny, then it's no wonder why the government has become so tyrannical.



Odd how you are trying to incite violence when the circumstances are that we build awareness and draw support.

It's as if you are trying to create a situation where you can vilify people who aren't villains.  Makes you...evil.


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.
> 
> So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, from the mouths of babes ... typically comes babble ... and this is no exception.
> 
> How you doing with the war on poverty?
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KNB said:
> 
> 
> 
> And?  Are you saying that your government is tyrannical and has been for some time now?
> 
> So why are all of you gun lovers still sitting at your computers instead of being the front line of defense against tyranny as you all claim the 2nd Amendment is for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.
> 
> So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
Click to expand...


Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...

Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.
> 
> So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...
> 
> Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....
Click to expand...


Hey bumbler - what have you got now junior? Because you're stupidity just got you bent over in front of the world


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.
> 
> So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous _asshole_ trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...
> 
> Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....
Click to expand...

Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...
> 
> Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?
Click to expand...


Neither. I've already explained this once junior. But, apparently you are a bit slow, so I'll explain it again....

Because we're law abiding citizens first and foremost. Taking up arms against the U.S. government should be a last resort - only after all legal channels have been exhausted. And considering how the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled in our favor in the last half a dozen or so rulings, it's painfully clear that we have no come to that extreme measure yet.

So now that I've clearly and honestly answered you question, please extend me the same courtesy - why are you a snarky, disingenuous asshole trying to goad your fellow citizens into taking up arms against your own government? Are you such a dirtbag that you're hungry for a bloodbath? Or are you so afraid of the conservative movement that you want it quashed by the federal government in a war?


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...
> 
> Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?
Click to expand...


Oh, and by the way _stupid_, where did anyone ask what he "meant"? I sure as hell didn't. I asked why he said it. What and why are two vastly different things. Or did you drop out of school before they got to that?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...
> 
> Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....
> 
> 
> 
> Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. *Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and by the way _stupid_, where did anyone ask what he "meant"? I sure as hell didn't. I asked why he said it. What and why are two vastly different things. Or did you drop out of school before they got to that?
Click to expand...


"Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?"


----------



## Wildman

Bumblerclown, why do you hate America by loving that fucking mulatto muslime illegal alien son-of-a-bitch ?

we are NOT hiding from anything, we are standing up with and for our 2nd Amdt. rights, if you had any knowledge about what actually started the Revolutionary War, you might understand our reluctance to do what our forefathers did.

do you know the reason for the Revolutionary War ??????


----------



## Bumberclyde

Wildman said:


> Bumblerclown, why do you hate America by loving that fucking mulatto muslime illegal alien son-of-a-bitch ?
> 
> we are NOT hiding from anything, we are standing up with and for our 2nd Amdt. rights, if you had any knowledge about what actually started the Revolutionary War, you might understand our reluctance to do what our forefathers did.
> 
> do you know the reason for the Revolutionary War ??????



Republicans are largely responsible for getting Barry elected. You ran a guy against him who wears magic underwear. Wtf did you expect?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumblerclown, why do you hate America by loving that fucking mulatto muslime illegal alien son-of-a-bitch ?
> 
> we are NOT hiding from anything, we are standing up with and for our 2nd Amdt. rights, if you had any knowledge about what actually started the Revolutionary War, you might understand our reluctance to do what our forefathers did.
> 
> do you know the reason for the Revolutionary War ??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are largely responsible for getting Barry elected. You ran a guy against him who wears magic underwear. Wtf did you expect?
Click to expand...


Magic underwear?  Leftist long term memory is practically zero and what you do remember you re-write.  All year until he won the nomination you leftists were all saying how he's a moderate, the candidate you fear the most, you would have a hard time even criticizing him.  Then when he was nominated, all of a sudden he was an extremist lunatic.

No one with a brain ever bought your crap.  But no one with a brain is buying your crap now.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumblerclown, why do you hate America by loving that fucking mulatto muslime illegal alien son-of-a-bitch ?
> 
> we are NOT hiding from anything, we are standing up with and for our 2nd Amdt. rights, if you had any knowledge about what actually started the Revolutionary War, you might understand our reluctance to do what our forefathers did.
> 
> do you know the reason for the Revolutionary War ??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are largely responsible for getting Barry elected. You ran a guy against him who wears magic underwear. Wtf did you expect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magic underwear?  Leftist long term memory is practically zero and what you do remember you re-write.  All year until he won the nomination you leftists were all saying how he's a moderate, the candidate you fear the most, you would have a hard time even criticizing him.  Then when he was nominated, all of a sudden he was an extremist lunatic.
> 
> No one with a brain ever bought your crap.  But no one with a brain is buying your crap now.
Click to expand...


At least I didn't vote for a guy in magic underwear, like you did. 

I never said he was a moderate, he's a 100% religious lunatic.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are largely responsible for getting Barry elected. You ran a guy against him who wears magic underwear. Wtf did you expect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magic underwear?  Leftist long term memory is practically zero and what you do remember you re-write.  All year until he won the nomination you leftists were all saying how he's a moderate, the candidate you fear the most, you would have a hard time even criticizing him.  Then when he was nominated, all of a sudden he was an extremist lunatic.
> 
> No one with a brain ever bought your crap.  But no one with a brain is buying your crap now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least I didn't vote for a guy in magic underwear, like you did.
> 
> I never said he was a moderate, he's a 100% religious lunatic.
Click to expand...


You voted for a Marxist, I wouldn't brag, comrade.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magic underwear?  Leftist long term memory is practically zero and what you do remember you re-write.  All year until he won the nomination you leftists were all saying how he's a moderate, the candidate you fear the most, you would have a hard time even criticizing him.  Then when he was nominated, all of a sudden he was an extremist lunatic.
> 
> No one with a brain ever bought your crap.  But no one with a brain is buying your crap now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least I didn't vote for a guy in magic underwear, like you did.
> 
> I never said he was a moderate, he's a 100% religious lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You voted for a Marxist, I wouldn't brag, comrade.
Click to expand...


Nope, wrong again.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. *Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and by the way _stupid_, where did anyone ask what he "meant"? I sure as hell didn't. I asked why he said it. What and why are two vastly different things. Or did you drop out of school before they got to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?"
Click to expand...


I got it, if I want to be a man of MY convictions, I have to do what you tell me to in order to prove that I am a man of MY convictions.  Liberals are so arrogant.  Never do you ask what anyone thinks, you tell us what we should think.  It's why you know nothing of the world past the end of your nose.


----------



## OKTexas

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's trying to tell you all what a bunch of chickenshits you all are for hiding behind the 2nd amendment, then doing nothing about the rights the 2nd gives you to take down a tyrannical government which you're being subjected to right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exercising my 2nd Amendment rights means I'm "hiding" behind it? So by you're own asinine logic, you're "hiding" behind the 1st Amendment because you're sitting here like a chickenshit anonymously exercising your 1st Amendments rights on the internet...
> 
> Yes folks,  [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] really _is_ this fuck'n stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't shhot the messenger, you folks weren't able to figure what he meant so I told you. You have a right to take down your tyrannical government through the 2nd and you're not using it. Is it because you like tyrannical governments or are you a bunch of chickshits? Which is it?
Click to expand...


Why do you like murders and rapist?


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> 20 children hospitalized each day.  Those guns make us so safe.
> Twenty U.S. Kids Hospitalized Each Day for Gun Injuries: Study ? WebMD


 [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION]

Since you're advertising that you have a brain, let's put it to the test.  Maybe you can do what every liberal so far has whiffed on.  What exactly is your plan to eliminate guns.  In particular, as the OP pointed out, making pot illegal doesn't work, why would it work for guns?   What's your plan?  Please state your response in the form of answering the OP's question.



kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill

But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.


----------



## hunarcy

Luddly Neddite said:


> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.



That's not true.  But, reasonable people don't want to be disarmed and victimized because some people's fear out weighs their reason.


----------



## kaz

Luddly Neddite said:


> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.



That's bad, so what about addressing the OP's question?



kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


----------



## Kinte

Remove the democrats from office send them all to Haiti and the world will be a better and safer place.  That includes you Billary.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Kinte said:


> Remove the democrats from office send them all to Haiti and the world will be a better and safer place.  That includes you Billary.



Haiti has enough problems without being invaded by Americans.

And if you don't want Hillary to be prez, try getting someone who's not wearing magic underwear, or some other loony shit, to go up against her.


----------



## hangover

> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?


I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

hangover said:


> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.
Click to expand...


I wish they would make the election about gun violence. The GOP would definitely win.


NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control


----------



## Bumberclyde

Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.


.


----------



## kaz

hangover said:


> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm sure that's why.  They must have had a conference call with the NRA and the RNC and they were so afraid of your incredible plan, they decided to just be safe and delete it so no one else saw it.  It was awesome.



So did you have an actual plan beyond making the election about it?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .



So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .



Go ahead and invent a firearm like that. See if it sells.


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.



And what is your plan for automobile deaths? More children die _every_ year from automobiles than from guns. But oddly enough, you don't seem to give a fuck about them.

A little irrational, are we? Slightly unhinged?


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...
Click to expand...


Well, Bumbleclyde is so slow, she thinks that illegal guns can't be smuggled inside of the country (even though 10,000 different items are every day in America - cocaine, heroin, etc.).

How adorable are naïve, idealistic Dumbocrats?!? They're a lot like children - except they are annoying while children are a joy.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...[/]
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...[/]
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're idea is a fantasy.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're idea is a fantasy.*
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## Wildman

Luddly Neddite said:


> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.



55,000,000, that is *FIFTY FIVE MILLION* Americans murdered by liberals, that's  *FIFTY FIVE MILLION* people who could have led a good productive life, one of them may have been the true Messiah or the next president who would follow the Constitution to the letter and a leader of leaders


----------



## Wildman

Bumberclyde said:


> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> .



Bumblerclod, do you have any fucking idea how fucking stupid this is ?   _"Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles,"_ apparently not, besides, guns do NOT have "handles"  

"fingerprint scanner", why don't you invent this  "fingerprint scanner" that would fit on a gun "handle"  being as you seem to be so fucking  brilliant  ...


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You're idea is a fantasy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


For serveral reasons....


As I've already stated (and you've avoided because you know you're wrong), guns are smuggled into this country all the time. What are you going to do, force manufacturers in Russia and China to implement your little scanner? 


Technology can be bypassed. Has there ever been a safe that wasn't cracked? Nope. Has there ever been an O/S that wasn't hacked? Nope. History has proven unequivocallly that if it was made by man, it can be bypassed by man.


Even if your ignorant, naive, utopian dream came to fruition and the U.S. government passed a law requireing all firearms to have a Star Trek biometric scanner on them and they were able to enforce this law over foreign sovereign nations such as Russia and China - what do you do about the existing 6.4 trillion guns in the world that already exist junior?

Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats never have a plan? Never. Not once. Everything they do is a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling, fumbling act of buffoonery. Their fiscal plans collapse cities (Detroit), states (California), and nations (U.S., Cuba, Greece, U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc.). Their healthcare policies cause the cost to skyrocket and the availability to plummet (how is Obamacare working out libs?). Their foreign policies cause us to be mocked by our enemies, isolated by our allies, and attacked over and over and over and over (Benghazi, Boston Marathon, WTC I, U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, etc.).

But, that's what happens when you form your "ideas" based on ignorant, immature, utopian idealism.


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.



More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.

And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?

Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...


----------



## P@triot

Luddly Neddite said:


> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> *But we still cater to a small minority* of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.



How does it feel to be our bitch?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You're idea is a fantasy.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For serveral reasons....
> 
> 
> As I've already stated (and you've avoided because you know you're wrong), guns are smuggled into this country all the time. What are you going to do, force manufacturers in Russia and China to implement your little scanner?
> 
> 
> Technology can be bypassed. Has there ever been a safe that wasn't cracked? Nope. Has there ever been an O/S that wasn't hacked? Nope. History has proven unequivocallly that if it was made by man, it can be bypassed by man.
> 
> 
> Even if your ignorant, naive, utopian dream came to fruition and the U.S. government passed a law requireing all firearms to have a Star Trek biometric scanner on them and they were able to enforce this law over foreign sovereign nations such as Russia and China - what do you do about the existing 6.4 trillion guns in the world that already exist junior?
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats never have a plan? Never. Not once. Everything they do is a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling, fumbling act of buffoonery. Their fiscal plans collapse cities (Detroit), states (California), and nations (U.S., Cuba, Greece, U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc.). Their healthcare policies cause the cost to skyrocket and the availability to plummet (how is Obamacare working out libs?). Their foreign policies cause us to be mocked by our enemies, isolated by our allies, and attacked over and over and over and over (Benghazi, Boston Marathon, WTC I, U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, etc.).
> 
> But, that's what happens when you form your "ideas" based on ignorant, immature, utopian idealism.
Click to expand...

How many guns from 100 years ago are used today in crimes? Meaning that over time, guns get replaced... Got to start somewhere. Unlike you, who doesn't want anything done, ever. My plan takes a step in the right direction. As for foreign guns, it would be fairly simple to convince others of a measure that actually would work. Cars all over the world now have seatbelts...


----------



## zeke

Isn't it amazing that the best idea a fucking stupid gun nutter can come up with to prevent needless, senseless death is.........to do absolutely fucking nothing. To act like there is no problem to solve.

Of course, the limited intellect displayed on here by the likes of a rotty or a warrior or a go for it, spider,  or any of the  other gun nutter idiots, well what can you expect. 

Low intelligence gives poor results. No matter what the problem is.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
Click to expand...

Another epic fail. Cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures like air bags, seat belts... Guns, not so much.


----------



## zeke

You all still trying that old dodge of using cars and shopping carts as the equivalent of guns.

I mean everybody knows shopping care were designed and intended to kill and maim. Cars to.

See my above post about idiot gun nutters.

Hey next time you all have to go to work or the store, drive your fucking gun.

Going grocery shopping, take your fucking gun to carry your grocery's in.

Idiots.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For serveral reasons....
> 
> 
> As I've already stated (and you've avoided because you know you're wrong), guns are smuggled into this country all the time. What are you going to do, force manufacturers in Russia and China to implement your little scanner?
> 
> 
> Technology can be bypassed. Has there ever been a safe that wasn't cracked? Nope. Has there ever been an O/S that wasn't hacked? Nope. History has proven unequivocallly that if it was made by man, it can be bypassed by man.
> 
> 
> Even if your ignorant, naive, utopian dream came to fruition and the U.S. government passed a law requireing all firearms to have a Star Trek biometric scanner on them and they were able to enforce this law over foreign sovereign nations such as Russia and China - what do you do about the existing 6.4 trillion guns in the world that already exist junior?
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats never have a plan? Never. Not once. Everything they do is a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling, fumbling act of buffoonery. Their fiscal plans collapse cities (Detroit), states (California), and nations (U.S., Cuba, Greece, U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc.). Their healthcare policies cause the cost to skyrocket and the availability to plummet (how is Obamacare working out libs?). Their foreign policies cause us to be mocked by our enemies, isolated by our allies, and attacked over and over and over and over (Benghazi, Boston Marathon, WTC I, U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, etc.).
> 
> But, that's what happens when you form your "ideas" based on ignorant, immature, utopian idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many guns from 100 years ago are used today in crimes? Meaning that over time, guns get replaced... Got to start somewhere. Unlike you, who doesn't want anything done, ever. My plan takes a step in the right direction. As for foreign guns, it would be fairly simple to convince others of a measure that actually would work. Cars all over the world now have seatbelts...
Click to expand...


Hey stupid, you can't replace a gun with one that doesn't exist. Your plan is nothing more than a pipe dream.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> For serveral reasons....
> 
> 
> As I've already stated (and you've avoided because you know you're wrong), guns are smuggled into this country all the time. What are you going to do, force manufacturers in Russia and China to implement your little scanner?
> 
> 
> Technology can be bypassed. Has there ever been a safe that wasn't cracked? Nope. Has there ever been an O/S that wasn't hacked? Nope. History has proven unequivocallly that if it was made by man, it can be bypassed by man.
> 
> 
> Even if your ignorant, naive, utopian dream came to fruition and the U.S. government passed a law requireing all firearms to have a Star Trek biometric scanner on them and they were able to enforce this law over foreign sovereign nations such as Russia and China - what do you do about the existing 6.4 trillion guns in the world that already exist junior?
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats never have a plan? Never. Not once. Everything they do is a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling, fumbling act of buffoonery. Their fiscal plans collapse cities (Detroit), states (California), and nations (U.S., Cuba, Greece, U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc.). Their healthcare policies cause the cost to skyrocket and the availability to plummet (how is Obamacare working out libs?). Their foreign policies cause us to be mocked by our enemies, isolated by our allies, and attacked over and over and over and over (Benghazi, Boston Marathon, WTC I, U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, etc.).
> 
> But, that's what happens when you form your "ideas" based on ignorant, immature, utopian idealism.
> 
> 
> 
> How many guns from 100 years ago are used today in crimes? Meaning that over time, guns get replaced... Got to start somewhere. Unlike you, who doesn't want anything done, ever. My plan takes a step in the right direction. As for foreign guns, it would be fairly simple to convince others of a measure that actually would work. Cars all over the world now have seatbelts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, you can't replace a gun with one that doesn't exist. Your plan is nothing more than a pipe dream.
Click to expand...


Still better than what you're smoking in your pipe.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many guns from 100 years ago are used today in crimes? Meaning that over time, guns get replaced... Got to start somewhere. Unlike you, who doesn't want anything done, ever. My plan takes a step in the right direction. As for foreign guns, it would be fairly simple to convince others of a measure that actually would work. Cars all over the world now have seatbelts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, you can't replace a gun with one that doesn't exist. Your plan is nothing more than a pipe dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still better than what you're smoking in your pipe.
Click to expand...


My plans are realistic and can be applied today. I figured you were smoking something. No one could be as retarded as you are without dope.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...[/]
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligun ? Fingerprint security - The Firearm Blog
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/LockState-LS-SC1000-Fingerprint-Biometric-Safe/dp/B002KMJZW0]LockState LS-SC1000 Fingerprint Biometric Safe Case - Amazon.com[/ame]
> Fingerprint Gun Safes: Never Sacrifice Accessibility for Safety Again - The Gun Box Blog
Click to expand...


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...[/]
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligun ? Fingerprint security - The Firearm Blog
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/LockState-LS-SC1000-Fingerprint-Biometric-Safe/dp/B002KMJZW0]LockState LS-SC1000 Fingerprint Biometric Safe Case - Amazon.com[/ame]
> Fingerprint Gun Safes: Never Sacrifice Accessibility for Safety Again - The Gun Box Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if your shooting hand was injured and you had to shoot with your off hand?
> 
> Fingerprint scanners can also be defeated.
Click to expand...


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
Click to expand...


Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> What if your shooting hand was injured and you had to shoot with your off hand?
> 
> Fingerprint scanners can also be defeated.



I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?


----------



## hangover

Lonestar_logic said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish they would make the election about gun violence. The GOP would definitely win.
> 
> 
> NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control
Click to expand...


Following the devastating mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., support for stricter gun control laws is now the highest it's been in a decade and has surged 18 points since the spring of this year, according to a new CBS News poll.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict, according to the poll, conducted Dec. 14 - 16.
Poll: Support for stricter gun control at 10-year high - CBS News
You lose.


----------



## RKMBrown

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of gun handles, and you'd need to use the scan once every 24 hours or it won't fire after that time. So when the gun is stolen, it can't be used, since most won't be armed at the time of the theft. You could even store your gun loaded, as nobody could fire it anyways unless you yourself use the scan to arm it, making it faster to shoot at an intruder.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of this thread, so criminals buy illegal guns that don't have that feature...[/]
> 
> kaz, c'mon, that's all you can complain about? My idea must be really good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligun ? Fingerprint security - The Firearm Blog
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/LockState-LS-SC1000-Fingerprint-Biometric-Safe/dp/B002KMJZW0]LockState LS-SC1000 Fingerprint Biometric Safe Case - Amazon.com[/ame]
> Fingerprint Gun Safes: Never Sacrifice Accessibility for Safety Again - The Gun Box Blog
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

zeke said:


> Isn't it amazing that the best idea a fucking stupid gun nutter can come up with to prevent needless, senseless death is.........to do absolutely fucking nothing. To act like there is no problem to solve.
> 
> Of course, the limited intellect displayed on here by the likes of a rotty or a warrior or a go for it, spider,  or any of the  other gun nutter idiots, well what can you expect.
> 
> Low intelligence gives poor results. No matter what the problem is.



The question by the OP was simple.  Tell us what your plan is.  Admitting you have no plan and then mocking us for solving the problem you can't is a great example of "limited intellect displayed."


----------



## kaz

hangover said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they would make the election about gun violence. The GOP would definitely win.
> 
> 
> NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Following the devastating mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., support for stricter gun control laws is now the highest it's been in a decade and has surged 18 points since the spring of this year, according to a new CBS News poll.
> 
> Fifty-seven percent of Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict, according to the poll, conducted Dec. 14 - 16.
> Poll: Support for stricter gun control at 10-year high - CBS News
> You lose.
Click to expand...


People once would have polled the earth was flat, did that make it so?  Would a poll on global warming confirm whether it's man made or not?

Also, you promised us you'd presented a solution and the mods deleted it. So, in this thread we're asking for solutions.   Now's your chance.  Stop shucking and jiving and present it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your shooting hand was injured and you had to shoot with your off hand?
> 
> Fingerprint scanners can also be defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?
Click to expand...


It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.

Intelligun

Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.

I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

hangover said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they would make the election about gun violence. The GOP would definitely win.
> 
> 
> NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Following the devastating mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., support for stricter gun control laws is now the highest it's been in a decade and has surged 18 points since the spring of this year, according to a new CBS News poll.
> 
> Fifty-seven percent of Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict, according to the poll, conducted Dec. 14 - 16.
> Poll: Support for stricter gun control at 10-year high - CBS News
> You lose.
Click to expand...


That's why the President was able to get his gun legislation passed.  Oh wait!!  

Damn you people are stupid.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your shooting hand was injured and you had to shoot with your off hand?
> 
> Fingerprint scanners can also be defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
Click to expand...


Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't denying criminals and mental cases guns be infringing on their 2nd amendment rights? So that's ok?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't denying criminals and mental cases guns be infringing on their 2nd amendment rights? So that's ok?
Click to expand...


Sure, I'll explain basic Constitutional rights to you.  Let me introduce you to the fifth amendment of the US Constitution:  "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  So, if "criminals" or "mental cases" have had with "due process of law" the right to legally buy a gun stripped, then it is actually not infringing on their 2nd amendment rights.  If they have not, then it is.

All of this once evades the question by the OP, how do you stop them from buying an illegal gun?  But as over and over you have no answer to that, this sort of irrelevancy is where you're going to keep heading, isn't it?


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if your shooting hand was injured and you had to shoot with your off hand?
> 
> Fingerprint scanners can also be defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
Click to expand...


iPhone fingerprint scanner works pretty good.  They get better as they go along.  Manual key override requires the key, the user is assumed to have a means to secure the key away from the weapon.  Depends on your personal situation.  Do you lock your car door? How about the door to your place of business?  I don't have a problem with easily removed locks, people use em or don't, free country.  That said if a kid drowns in you pool and you did not have a kid proof fence... expect to be sued and loose.  As these gun locks become more pervasive expect to be sued if a kid shoots someone or himself with your unlocked gun.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.
Click to expand...


My guess is most new guns will begin to pervasively have this tech, probably by law... the bullets will become super expensive and get tagged for identification purposes... and the old lead bullets and making bullets will become banned without a special license that costs way to much.  Thus over time, just like in the end of the world shows, we'll be back to using bows and arrows and only a few people will still have guns.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure finger print scanners work for both hands.  Seat belts can be defeated... so what?  Are you planning to cut off the finger of your victim so you can use his gun? Or maybe your gonna get his print before you do the crime, print it out on latex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key* reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> iPhone fingerprint scanner works pretty good.  They get better as they go along.  Manual key override requires the key, the user is assumed to have a means to secure the key away from the weapon.  Depends on your personal situation.  Do you lock your car door? How about the door to your place of business?  I don't have a problem with easily removed locks, people use em or don't, free country.  That said if a kid drowns in you pool and you did not have a kid proof fence... expect to be sued and loose.  As these gun locks become more pervasive expect to be sued if a kid shoots someone or himself with your unlocked gun.
Click to expand...


Door locks and not impenetrable. 

I addressed your key override key remark already. If I person can steal your gun, he can also steal the override key.

Are you sure you want to compare children drowning in pools to those dying by guns?

1. Fact: Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That's right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.[1]

2. Fact: More children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms. As seen by the chart on the previous page, children are at a 2,000 percent greater risk from the car in their driveway, than they are by the gun in their parents' closet. Children are almost 7 times more likely to drown than to be shot, and they are 130 percent more likely to die from choking on their dinner.[2]

3. Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase. [3]

4. Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children, most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse.[4] Dr. Kleck also notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked."[5]

Myth #2: Children Gun Deaths Are At Epidemic Proportions


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is most new guns will begin to pervasively have this tech, probably by law... the bullets will become super expensive and get tagged for identification purposes... and the old lead bullets and making bullets will become banned without a special license that costs way to much.  Thus over time, just like in the end of the world shows, we'll be back to using bows and arrows and only a few people will still have guns.
Click to expand...


I doubt it.

This is the future in ammo. BTW







The new R.I.P. Ammo


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My guess is most new guns will begin to pervasively have this tech, probably by law... the bullets will become super expensive and get tagged for identification purposes... and the old lead bullets and making bullets will become banned without a special license that costs way to much.  Thus over time, just like in the end of the world shows, we'll be back to using bows and arrows and only a few people will still have guns.
Click to expand...


I know of no reason to doubt that will happen.  The Constitution isn't even a speed bump restricting the Federal government anymore.  In fact, it's a tool to bypass the legislature and just decree new law.  Sadly, nothing would surprise me at this point.

Obviously if that technology were to spread for personal weapons in the marketplace, that would be excellent.  I would personally be a lot more willing to buy a gun for self defense with that feature.  If I trusted it.  I'm not there yet with that.  I mentioned I'm a collector now, but my guns are locked and I don't keep ammunition with the guns.  Then again, I live in really safe areas.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It has a manual key override, no need to cut off fingers, just get the damn key* reprogram it to your print. And you have to specify right or left hand since the scanner is on one side not both.
> 
> Intelligun
> 
> Do you have a safe or anything that requires a fingerprint scan? If so have you ever noticed that if your finger isn't just right on the pad it won't read properly.
> 
> I personally think it's a dumb idea and I doubt many people will purchase the kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iPhone fingerprint scanner works pretty good.  They get better as they go along.  Manual key override requires the key, the user is assumed to have a means to secure the key away from the weapon.  Depends on your personal situation.  Do you lock your car door? How about the door to your place of business?  I don't have a problem with easily removed locks, people use em or don't, free country.  That said if a kid drowns in you pool and you did not have a kid proof fence... expect to be sued and loose.  As these gun locks become more pervasive expect to be sued if a kid shoots someone or himself with your unlocked gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Door locks and not impenetrable.
> 
> I addressed your key override key remark already. If I person can steal your gun, he can also steal the override key.
> 
> Are you sure you want to compare children drowning in pools to those dying by guns?
> 
> 1. Fact: Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That's right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.[1]
> 
> 2. Fact: More children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms. As seen by the chart on the previous page, children are at a 2,000 percent greater risk from the car in their driveway, than they are by the gun in their parents' closet. Children are almost 7 times more likely to drown than to be shot, and they are 130 percent more likely to die from choking on their dinner.[2]
> 
> 3. Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase. [3]
> 
> 4. Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children, most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse.[4] Dr. Kleck also notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked."[5]
> 
> Myth #2: Children Gun Deaths Are At Epidemic Proportions
Click to expand...


LS you are arguing with someone who agrees with the point that these gun laws suck.  My point was not to say we need these things.  My point was to make predictions about what is going to happen, like it or not. We do these things because we can and because people demand solutions.  Whether or not said solutions are effective is completely mute to the progressive liberal mind.  

As for the children thing.. I don't mind retroactive negligence laws.  If a child drowns in your pool and you don't have a fence, negligence.  If a child picks up your unlocked gun and kills himself, negligence.  If a child dies of heat exhaustion in a car, negligence. I don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that while this would be an argument at least in the child shooting thread, this one's about how to stop criminals from buying guns.  This proposal is just a variation of [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] 's proposal to tax the snot out of guns.  It doesn't address  the question because it's only another type of how government restricts guns.  Whether they are banned, taxed or keypadded, it just makes criminals move on to an illegal gun.  And hence the question, why their law will work when pot is outright illegal and any kid can buy all they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is most new guns will begin to pervasively have this tech, probably by law... the bullets will become super expensive and get tagged for identification purposes... and the old lead bullets and making bullets will become banned without a special license that costs way to much.  Thus over time, just like in the end of the world shows, we'll be back to using bows and arrows and only a few people will still have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of no reason to doubt that will happen.  The Constitution isn't even a speed bump restricting the Federal government anymore.  In fact, it's a tool to bypass the legislature and just decree new law.  Sadly, nothing would surprise me at this point.
> 
> Obviously if that technology were to spread for personal weapons in the marketplace, that would be excellent.  I would personally be a lot more willing to buy a gun for self defense with that feature.  If I trusted it.  I'm not there yet with that.  I mentioned I'm a collector now, but my guns are locked and I don't keep ammunition with the guns.  Then again, I live in really safe areas.
Click to expand...


I live in a remote location, I have plenty of hunting weapons. Don't have any young kids any more so my guns are ready to use and not locked up.  I'll get a cabinet and lock em up as a part of the child proofing when the grand kids start showing up.  I'm not worried about unlocking em for use as I have a pack of dogs that won't let anyone within 500y of the ranch house without an escort


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is most new guns will begin to pervasively have this tech, probably by law... the bullets will become super expensive and get tagged for identification purposes... and the old lead bullets and making bullets will become banned without a special license that costs way to much.  Thus over time, just like in the end of the world shows, we'll be back to using bows and arrows and only a few people will still have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no reason to doubt that will happen.  The Constitution isn't even a speed bump restricting the Federal government anymore.  In fact, it's a tool to bypass the legislature and just decree new law.  Sadly, nothing would surprise me at this point.
> 
> Obviously if that technology were to spread for personal weapons in the marketplace, that would be excellent.  I would personally be a lot more willing to buy a gun for self defense with that feature.  If I trusted it.  I'm not there yet with that.  I mentioned I'm a collector now, but my guns are locked and I don't keep ammunition with the guns.  Then again, I live in really safe areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a remote location, I have plenty of hunting weapons. Don't have any young kids any more so my guns are ready to use and not locked up.  I'll get a cabinet and lock em up as a part of the child proofing when the grand kids start showing up.  I'm not worried about unlocking em for use as I have a pack of dogs that won't let anyone within 500y of the ranch house without an escort
Click to expand...


We had a yappy French dog until last year when it passed away.  I'll be honest, I hated that dog.  It was a dog for women and children.  It was a Bichon Frise.  Whenever we were on vacation and my wife's friends took care of it when we got back it was the same story.  How'd it go?  I love your dog!  My kids love your dog!  I'm sorry, it can't come back, my husband hated it....   But I will give it credit to your point that it was the best damned security system we ever had though.  Protection?  No.  Warning, yeah...


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no reason to doubt that will happen.  The Constitution isn't even a speed bump restricting the Federal government anymore.  In fact, it's a tool to bypass the legislature and just decree new law.  Sadly, nothing would surprise me at this point.
> 
> Obviously if that technology were to spread for personal weapons in the marketplace, that would be excellent.  I would personally be a lot more willing to buy a gun for self defense with that feature.  If I trusted it.  I'm not there yet with that.  I mentioned I'm a collector now, but my guns are locked and I don't keep ammunition with the guns.  Then again, I live in really safe areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a remote location, I have plenty of hunting weapons. Don't have any young kids any more so my guns are ready to use and not locked up.  I'll get a cabinet and lock em up as a part of the child proofing when the grand kids start showing up.  I'm not worried about unlocking em for use as I have a pack of dogs that won't let anyone within 500y of the ranch house without an escort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had a yappy French dog until last year when it passed away.  I'll be honest, I hated that dog.  It was a dog for women and children.  It was a Bichon Frise.  Whenever we were on vacation and my wife's friends took care of it when we got back it was the same story.  How'd it go?  I love your dog!  My kids love your dog!  I'm sorry, it can't come back, my husband hated it....   But I will give it credit to your point that it was the best damned security system we ever had though.  Protection?  No.  Warning, yeah...
Click to expand...


My Australian shepherds and Blue Lacys are all great dogs. When we go out of town we find a high school kid to drop by to check on the feed and water.  They pretty much have the free run of about 5 acres of woods that I cross fenced around the ranch house.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a remote location, I have plenty of hunting weapons. Don't have any young kids any more so my guns are ready to use and not locked up.  I'll get a cabinet and lock em up as a part of the child proofing when the grand kids start showing up.  I'm not worried about unlocking em for use as I have a pack of dogs that won't let anyone within 500y of the ranch house without an escort
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had a yappy French dog until last year when it passed away.  I'll be honest, I hated that dog.  It was a dog for women and children.  It was a Bichon Frise.  Whenever we were on vacation and my wife's friends took care of it when we got back it was the same story.  How'd it go?  I love your dog!  My kids love your dog!  I'm sorry, it can't come back, my husband hated it....   But I will give it credit to your point that it was the best damned security system we ever had though.  Protection?  No.  Warning, yeah...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My Australian shepherds and Blue Lacys are all great dogs. When we go out of town we find a high school kid to drop by to check on the feed and water.  They pretty much have the free run of about 5 acres of woods that I cross fenced around the ranch house.
Click to expand...


Nice arrangement, it's good you can trust them


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a yappy French dog until last year when it passed away.  I'll be honest, I hated that dog.  It was a dog for women and children.  It was a Bichon Frise.  Whenever we were on vacation and my wife's friends took care of it when we got back it was the same story.  How'd it go?  I love your dog!  My kids love your dog!  I'm sorry, it can't come back, my husband hated it....   But I will give it credit to your point that it was the best damned security system we ever had though.  Protection?  No.  Warning, yeah...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Australian shepherds and Blue Lacys are all great dogs. When we go out of town we find a high school kid to drop by to check on the feed and water.  They pretty much have the free run of about 5 acres of woods that I cross fenced around the ranch house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice arrangement, it's good you can trust them
Click to expand...


Yeah well I know their parents.. Oh you mean the dogs   Yeah I trust them to get into all sorts of trouble.


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For serveral reasons....
> 
> 
> As I've already stated (and you've avoided because you know you're wrong), guns are smuggled into this country all the time. What are you going to do, force manufacturers in Russia and China to implement your little scanner?
> 
> 
> Technology can be bypassed. Has there ever been a safe that wasn't cracked? Nope. Has there ever been an O/S that wasn't hacked? Nope. History has proven unequivocallly that if it was made by man, it can be bypassed by man.
> 
> 
> Even if your ignorant, naive, utopian dream came to fruition and the U.S. government passed a law requireing all firearms to have a Star Trek biometric scanner on them and they were able to enforce this law over foreign sovereign nations such as Russia and China - what do you do about the existing 6.4 trillion guns in the world that already exist junior?
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats never have a plan? Never. Not once. Everything they do is a stumbling, mumbling, bumbling, fumbling act of buffoonery. Their fiscal plans collapse cities (Detroit), states (California), and nations (U.S., Cuba, Greece, U.S.S.R., Cambodia, etc.). Their healthcare policies cause the cost to skyrocket and the availability to plummet (how is Obamacare working out libs?). Their foreign policies cause us to be mocked by our enemies, isolated by our allies, and attacked over and over and over and over (Benghazi, Boston Marathon, WTC I, U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, etc.).
> 
> But, that's what happens when you form your "ideas" based on ignorant, immature, utopian idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many guns from 100 years ago are used today in crimes? Meaning that over time, guns get replaced... Got to start somewhere. Unlike you, who doesn't want anything done, ever. My plan takes a step in the right direction. As for foreign guns, it would be fairly simple to convince others of a measure that actually would work. Cars all over the world now have seatbelts...
Click to expand...


Well that's true, 100 years from now many of today's existing guns will be broken, corroded, destroyed, etc. So what do we do in the meantime - experience 100 years of Newtown slaughters because of irrational liberals?

In addition, you still haven't addressed the black market from foreign manufacturers and you haven't addressed the technology being bypassed anyway.

Do you have a real, practical, plan for these issues?


----------



## P@triot

zeke said:


> Isn't it amazing that the best idea a fucking stupid gun nutter can come up with to prevent needless, senseless death is.........to do absolutely fucking nothing. To act like there is no problem to solve.
> 
> Of course, the limited intellect displayed on here by the likes of a rotty or a warrior or a go for it, spider,  or any of the  other gun nutter idiots, well what can you expect.
> 
> Low intelligence gives poor results. No matter what the problem is.



Actually [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION] - conservatives have had the solution for over 100 years now. Unfortunately, irrational and ignorant liberals don't want implement it.

However, Newtown proved that your "solutions" end in slaughter and Arapahoe proved that our solution ends with security and safety.

Liberalism = Sandy Hook in Newtown = 27 victims dead in a slaughter

Conservatism = Arapohoe = only 1 dead (the killer) the day of the shooting (and only 1 victim who later succumbed to her wounds)

Gee....if only liberals were capable of basic math


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another epic fail. Cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures like air bags, seat belts... Guns, not so much.
Click to expand...


So then you're admitting [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] that you don't give a damn about human life? For you, it's all about control and the ability to dictate to companies what they must do?

Why does it matter to you that "cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures...."? I thought you were so distraught over the loss of human life? And if that's the case, wouldn't any normal, rational adult focus their efforts on stopping what causes _more_ death rather than what causes less death?

Where is the demand to outlaw automobiles? Help me to understand...


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
Click to expand...


A guns only purpose is to kill? Really? Then how do you explain that the Secret Service surrounds the president with a wicked arsenal of fully automatic weapons?!? If a gun's only purpose is to kill, isn't your president in mortal danger right now? And why aren't you demanding that the Secret Service disarm [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION]? 

Furthermore, I thought you "cared" about human life? If that's true, then you wouldn't care about the "intent" of the cause of the death - you'd only care about stopping it. If it's not true, and you don't care about human life, then you are despicable piece of shit for pretending to care in order to further an irrational agenda.

So which is it junior?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A guns only purpose is to kill? Really? Then how do you explain that the Secret Service surrounds the president with a wicked arsenal of fully automatic weapons?!? If a gun's only purpose is to kill, isn't your president in mortal danger right now? And why aren't you demanding that the Secret Service disarm [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION]?
> 
> Furthermore, I thought you "cared" about human life? If that's true, then you wouldn't care about the "intent" of the cause of the death - you'd only care about stopping it. If it's not true, and you don't care about human life, then you are despicable piece of shit for pretending to care in order to further an irrational agenda.
> 
> So which is it junior?
Click to expand...


You sure have a skill at wording things stupidly.  What do you think would happen if the secret service fired those guns?  Death of course.  I'll just repeat myself since nothing you said changes it:
Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
> 
> 
> 
> Another epic fail. Cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures like air bags, seat belts... Guns, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you're admitting [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] that you don't give a damn about human life? For you, it's all about control and the ability to dictate to companies what they must do?
> 
> Why does it matter to you that "cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures...."? I thought you were so distraught over the loss of human life? And if that's the case, wouldn't any normal, rational adult focus their efforts on stopping what causes _more_ death rather than what causes less death?
> 
> Where is the demand to outlaw automobiles? Help me to understand...
Click to expand...


Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> iPhone fingerprint scanner works pretty good.  They get better as they go along.  Manual key override requires the key, the user is assumed to have a means to secure the key away from the weapon.  Depends on your personal situation.  Do you lock your car door? How about the door to your place of business?  I don't have a problem with easily removed locks, people use em or don't, free country.  That said if a kid drowns in you pool and you did not have a kid proof fence... expect to be sued and loose.  As these gun locks become more pervasive expect to be sued if a kid shoots someone or himself with your unlocked gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Door locks and not impenetrable.
> 
> I addressed your key override key remark already. If I person can steal your gun, he can also steal the override key.
> 
> Are you sure you want to compare children drowning in pools to those dying by guns?
> 
> 1. Fact: Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That's right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.[1]
> 
> 2. Fact: More children will die in a car, drown in a pool, or choke on food than they will by firearms. As seen by the chart on the previous page, children are at a 2,000 percent greater risk from the car in their driveway, than they are by the gun in their parents' closet. Children are almost 7 times more likely to drown than to be shot, and they are 130 percent more likely to die from choking on their dinner.[2]
> 
> 3. Fact: Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase. [3]
> 
> 4. Fact: Despite the low number of gun accidents among children, most of these fatalities are not truly "accidents." According to Dr. Gary Kleck, many such accidents are misnamed -- those "accidents" actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse.[4] Dr. Kleck also notes that, "Accidental shooters were significantly more likely to have been arrested, arrested for a violent act, arrested in connection with alcohol, involved in highway crashes, given traffic citations, and to have had their driver's license suspended or revoked."[5]
> 
> Myth #2: Children Gun Deaths Are At Epidemic Proportions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LS you are arguing with someone who agrees with the point that these gun laws suck.  My point was not to say we need these things.  My point was to make predictions about what is going to happen, like it or not. We do these things because we can and because people demand solutions.  Whether or not said solutions are effective is completely mute to the progressive liberal mind.
> 
> As for the children thing.. I don't mind retroactive negligence laws.  If a child drowns in your pool and you don't have a fence, negligence.  If a child picks up your unlocked gun and kills himself, negligence.  If a child dies of heat exhaustion in a car, negligence. I don't see what the big deal is.
Click to expand...


Go ahead with your predictions there Nostradomus.

The big deal dumbass is education and freedom.

I have to put a fence around my pool because some idiots can't control their child?

I've had guns my entire life and raised five kids and never locked a single weapon up. I taught my children about guns how they were not toys and what the consequences were if they misused them and taught them all how to shoot before they were nine years old.

No matter how many laws you morons pass, you can't fix stupid.


----------



## Theowl32

Everything is a political opportunity for democraps. Their stupid minions just get lead along by their nose. Since the stupid ones (the 47%) always think they are the smartest ones in the room, they never consider how they are used as political pawns. 

The smarter ones know precisely what they are doing (Obama Pelosi Schumer Reid). They know they want to expand their power, and they will always go to their same old script. 

"They care about the poor and down trodden. They are the robinhoods. They have their best interests at heart. All of their intentions are pure and good. Conservatives hate minorities, women, gays etc and their greed is the reason for the plight of the poor. Those horrible one percenters that never include tinsel town celebs for some odd reason."

Lets take a look at some those lefties that have been on record bashing the "1%" shall we?

Barbara Streisand home, one of them....







George Clooney






Matt Damon






The left of course do not care. They are morons. Hypocritical pawns. All of them.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.



Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.

It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another epic fail. Cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures like air bags, seat belts... Guns, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you're admitting [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] that you don't give a damn about human life? For you, it's all about control and the ability to dictate to companies what they must do?
> 
> Why does it matter to you that "cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures...."? I thought you were so distraught over the loss of human life? And if that's the case, wouldn't any normal, rational adult focus their efforts on stopping what causes _more_ death rather than what causes less death?
> 
> Where is the demand to outlaw automobiles? Help me to understand...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.
Click to expand...


A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?

And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Australian shepherds and Blue Lacys are all great dogs. When we go out of town we find a high school kid to drop by to check on the feed and water.  They pretty much have the free run of about 5 acres of woods that I cross fenced around the ranch house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice arrangement, it's good you can trust them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well I know their parents.. Oh you mean the dogs   Yeah I trust them to get into all sorts of trouble.
Click to expand...


I'm sure, but you know what I mean, they stay on your property.  It's great for your both since you can give them more freedom that way.


----------



## kaz

No matter how long this thread stays alive, no liberals have an actual plan.

You have ones like CandyCorn (taxes) and BumperClyde (technology costs) who say if we ban guns in a different way then it will work.  We had a few who wanted to live in a police state and go all Singapore.  And we had a bunch who asked what our plan is to get guns from criminals when our argument is based on that we can't.  Not one libbie has a plan that we continue to live in the country we are in, and guns go poof on criminals.  Just demonstrating the OP was right, you can't....


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
Click to expand...


Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
Click to expand...


*Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.* 

what we hear everyday how cars are bad 

and public trans is the way to go 

--LOL


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
Click to expand...


First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.

Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
Click to expand...


Defending oneself is not necessary?

Are you really that stupid?

What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife? 

I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
Click to expand...


Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
> Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
> Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
> Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
> Miyagi: Someone always know more.
> Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
> Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
> Miyagi: So?
> Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
> Miyagi: That what you think?
> Daniel: [pondering] No.
> Miyagi: Then why train?
> Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
> Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
Click to expand...


You get your advice from a fictional movie.

That says a lot.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
> Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
> Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
> Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
> Miyagi: Someone always know more.
> Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
> Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
> Miyagi: So?
> Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
> Miyagi: That what you think?
> Daniel: [pondering] No.
> Miyagi: Then why train?
> Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
> Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get your advice from a fictional movie.
> 
> That says a lot.
Click to expand...

Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you're admitting [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION] that you don't give a damn about human life? For you, it's all about control and the ability to dictate to companies what they must do?
> 
> Why does it matter to you that "cars are being updated all the time with new safety measures...."? I thought you were so distraught over the loss of human life? And if that's the case, wouldn't any normal, rational adult focus their efforts on stopping what causes _more_ death rather than what causes less death?
> 
> Where is the demand to outlaw automobiles? Help me to understand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?
> 
> And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?
Click to expand...


So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen? 

As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
> Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
> Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
> Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
> Miyagi: Someone always know more.
> Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
> Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
> Miyagi: So?
> Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
> Miyagi: That what you think?
> Daniel: [pondering] No.
> Miyagi: Then why train?
> Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
> Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get your advice from a fictional movie.
> 
> That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?
Click to expand...


It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?
> 
> And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?
> 
> As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.
Click to expand...


You're assuming facts that are not in evidence.

Fact: More guns equal less crime.







Fact: Violent crime worse in Britain than in US.

Fact: Amongst the top ten killers in the United States, homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?
> 
> And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?
Click to expand...

Strawman and red herring.  I didn't say that, in fact I said I am intereted in the techology and it has zero to do with the discussion which is how do you keep guns away from criminals and isn't answered by your snarky and factually wrong statement.



Bumberclyde said:


> As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.



Suuurrrreeee they were.  That they are "gun free" zones had nothing to do with it.  The Washington Navy Yard having guns restricted was just coincidence.  I have land in Florida you might be interested in buying. I'll offer you a twofer with the Brooklyn Bridge...


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get your advice from a fictional movie.
> 
> That says a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Bad hair day Lonestar?  You're not usually such a moron.  He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making.  He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point.  And it did so effectively.  And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.

When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this.  Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings.  It was a life lesson for me.  When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong.  That was the last time I fell for their crap.  I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture.  And then, they are always wrong.  Not usually, always.


----------



## kaz

hangover said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave my plan yesterday, with a thread...MAKE THE ELECTION ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE...and it must have scared the NRA and GOP pretty bad, because it's been deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish they would make the election about gun violence. The GOP would definitely win.
> 
> 
> NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Following the devastating mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., support for stricter gun control laws is now the highest it's been in a decade and has surged 18 points since the spring of this year, according to a new CBS News poll.
> 
> Fifty-seven percent of Americans now say gun control laws should be made more strict, according to the poll, conducted Dec. 14 - 16.
> Poll: Support for stricter gun control at 10-year high - CBS News
> You lose.
Click to expand...


Still not hearing your plan that you promised us.  So what is it?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post says a lot about you. What do you think it says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad hair day Lonestar?  You're not usually such a moron.  He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making.  He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point.  And it did so effectively.  And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.
> 
> When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this.  Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings.  It was a life lesson for me.  When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong.  That was the last time I fell for their crap.  I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture.  And then, they are always wrong.  Not usually, always.
Click to expand...


That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.

And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?

Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad hair day Lonestar?  You're not usually such a moron.  He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making.  He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point.  And it did so effectively.  And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.
> 
> When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this.  Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings.  It was a life lesson for me.  When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong.  That was the last time I fell for their crap.  I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture.  And then, they are always wrong.  Not usually, always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.
> 
> And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?
> 
> Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO
Click to expand...


You do not brandish your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it.  If the classes you are taking are actually telling you not to draw it UNLESS you are going to use it, then they are sick or you're not listening very well.

I don't see why that movie passage bothered you so much, it demonstrated the point.  However, even if you don't like it, I don't get why you didn't just say it's a movie, whatever.  You way over reacted to it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

kaz said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad hair day Lonestar?  You're not usually such a moron.  He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making.  He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point.  And it did so effectively.  And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.
> 
> When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this.  Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings.  It was a life lesson for me.  When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong.  That was the last time I fell for their crap.  I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture.  And then, they are always wrong.  Not usually, always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.
> 
> And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?
> 
> Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not brandish your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it.  If the classes you are taking are actually telling you not to draw it UNLESS you are going to use it, then they are sick or you're not listening very well.
> 
> I don't see why that movie passage bothered you so much, it demonstrated the point.  However, even if you don't like it, I don't get why you didn't just say it's a movie, whatever.  You way over reacted to it.
Click to expand...


If you draw it, use it. Hesitation could cost you your life.

You're telling me you would draw your weapon in hopes that it will scare the attacker into submission? Or make him runaway to rob and/or kill another day?  

The point he tried to make had no bearing on guns, karate is not comparable to a .45 colt. Regardless of what you think, you do not buy a gun to NOT use it.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
> Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
> Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
> Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
> Miyagi: Someone always know more.
> Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
> Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
> Miyagi: So?
> Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
> Miyagi: That what you think?
> Daniel: [pondering] No.
> Miyagi: Then why train?
> Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
> Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get your advice from a fictional movie.
> 
> That says a lot.
Click to expand...


Actually...

The analogy here is, its better to have a gun in hopes of not needing it, than needing it and not having one. But all self respecting and law abiding gun owners would rather not use their firearms to kill anyone. They'd rather be trained in using a gun in hopes that they will never need to call upon it. That exchange between Mr. Miyagi and Daniel doesn't convey when you think it does.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

TemplarKormac said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
> Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
> Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
> Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
> Miyagi: Someone always know more.
> Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
> Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
> Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
> Miyagi: So?
> Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
> Miyagi: That what you think?
> Daniel: [pondering] No.
> Miyagi: Then why train?
> Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
> Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get your advice from a fictional movie.
> 
> That says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually...
> 
> The analogy here is, its better to have a gun in hopes of not needing it, than needing it and not having one. But all self respecting and law abiding gun owners would rather not use their firearms to kill anyone. They'd rather be trained in using a gun in hopes that they will never need to call upon it. That exchange between Mr. Miyagi and Daniel doesn't convey when you think it does.
Click to expand...


That's not the message I got from it.

I can't think of anyone law abiding or otherwise that wants to get robbed and/or killed either. I do believe if they have a choice they would probably rather kill than be killed. 

If I draw my weapon that means I'm in fear for my life thus I will take immediate action, which is to say I will fire until there is no longer a threat. I will not and I do not suggest a person draw their weapon in hopes of scaring away the attacker and give the attacker a chance to draw his weapon or any number of things that he could do while you HOPE you don't have to kill him. 

Seriously, if you draw your weapon for the purpose of intimidation or to demotivate the attacker. Just how afraid for your life are you?


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?
> 
> And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman and red herring.  I didn't say that, in fact I said I am intereted in the techology and it has zero to do with the discussion which is how do you keep guns away from criminals and isn't answered by your snarky and factually wrong statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suuurrrreeee they were.  That they are "gun free" zones had nothing to do with it.  The Washington Navy Yard having guns restricted was just coincidence.  I have land in Florida you might be interested in buying. I'll offer you a twofer with the Brooklyn Bridge...
Click to expand...

So you're for my fingerprint idea to make guns safer? Cool.  

There's no such thing as a gun free zone in the US, someone's going to always have a gun. If you need an armed guard in every school, I say go for it. Use excess troops, one in each school.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that you are a retard that looks to fictional movies in a pitiful attempt to make a point. In other words, it shows you cannot think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad hair day Lonestar?  You're not usually such a moron.  He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making.  He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point.  And it did so effectively.  And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.
> 
> When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this.  Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings.  It was a life lesson for me.  When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong.  That was the last time I fell for their crap.  I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture.  And then, they are always wrong.  Not usually, always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.
> 
> And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?
> 
> Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO
Click to expand...


You still don't get it.  First, my use of a popular folklore was just a vehicle, no different than any other use of language.  Everything we read or say is based on experience, shared or not.  Would you think better of me if I quoted Shakespeare instead?  Or are you saying we should never cite popular examples. lol...

Anyhow... back to you not getting it.  Take away every good person's weapons  and you will do nothing but embolden criminals, roving gangs of well armed criminals will go home to home taking your stuff and raping your women folk.  That's what we are talking about.  You appear to have bought weapons just to shoot things.. interesting viewpoint.  While I would admit to having bought weapons to hunt, and defend my home. I would not say that the purpose of my guns is to kill criminals.  Quite the opposite.  This is the type of concept authoritarians never get.  They don't appear to have the faculty to understand solutions that do not require the use of force.

Criminals and other predators are usually cowards, if given the choice they will usually avoid injury.  Thus pass over the home of the gun nut.  Nah, what they will do instead is look for easy prey... you know.. "gun free zones."


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
Click to expand...


None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.
> 
> And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?
> 
> Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not brandish your weapon unless you are WILLING to use it.  If the classes you are taking are actually telling you not to draw it UNLESS you are going to use it, then they are sick or you're not listening very well.
> 
> I don't see why that movie passage bothered you so much, it demonstrated the point.  However, even if you don't like it, I don't get why you didn't just say it's a movie, whatever.  You way over reacted to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you draw it, use it. Hesitation could cost you your life.
> 
> You're telling me you would draw your weapon in hopes that it will scare the attacker into submission? Or make him runaway to rob and/or kill another day?
> 
> The point he tried to make had no bearing on guns, karate is not comparable to a .45 colt. Regardless of what you think, you do not buy a gun to NOT use it.
Click to expand...


I answered that question.  If I draw a gun, I am willing to shoot.  The idea that you only draw your gun if you ARE going to shoot is irresponsible and sick.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
Click to expand...


My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get your advice from a fictional movie.
> 
> That says a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...
> 
> The analogy here is, its better to have a gun in hopes of not needing it, than needing it and not having one. But all self respecting and law abiding gun owners would rather not use their firearms to kill anyone. They'd rather be trained in using a gun in hopes that they will never need to call upon it. That exchange between Mr. Miyagi and Daniel doesn't convey when you think it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not the message I got from it.
> 
> I can't think of anyone law abiding or otherwise that wants to get robbed and/or killed either. I do believe if they have a choice they would probably rather kill than be killed.
> 
> If I draw my weapon that means I'm in fear for my life thus I will take immediate action, which is to say I will fire until there is no longer a threat. I will not and I do not suggest a person draw their weapon in hopes of scaring away the attacker and give the attacker a chance to draw his weapon or any number of things that he could do while you HOPE you don't have to kill him.
> 
> Seriously, if you draw your weapon for the purpose of intimidation or to demotivate the attacker. Just how afraid for your life are you?
Click to expand...


No one is arguing for that.  If someone is on your property and you can see their hands, you may pull your gun and tell them to slowly walk away and leave your property and keep their hands in plain site.  You are not "intimidating or demotivating them," you are protecting yourself.  I seriously doubt you ever took a gun class.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
Click to expand...


Strawman and irrelevant.  I neither argued they are "more" necessary than vehicles nor is that relevant.  So is that the standard you practice in your life?  Anything that is less necessary than your car goes in the trash can?  Oops, is your trash can more important than your car?  I hope so, otherwise you won't have one.  What a stupid argument.

And you are still evading the question.  None of this addresses the OP and what your proposal is to make your plan work.  How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?  We can't stop teenagers from getting pot.  Stop dancing.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
Click to expand...


LOL, buy an alarm ... so you can sit and wait for the police to bring ... guns!

See, your plan is actually to make sure that only government has guns.  That criminals will as well is just the cost of doing business to you.  Your goal is to have an unarmed population, the best way to have an all powerful government.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad hair day Lonestar?  You're not usually such a moron.  He picked a movie classic that demonstrated a point he was making.  He didn't say that was the source of his belief, just that it demonstrated the point.  And it did so effectively.  And he's correct, the primary use of guns is not to shoot criminals but to avoid having to shoot criminals.
> 
> When I was young, I heard some leftist stat about shootings along the line of something like that more people are shot by accident by honest citizens than on purpose, and I was wow, they are right on this.  Then when I had the whole picture, how many times guns prevented crimes without shots, it dwarfed shootings.  It was a life lesson for me.  When liberals slice a factoid, learn the big picture and you'll see how they are wrong.  That was the last time I fell for their crap.  I don't reject what they say, I learn the big picture.  And then, they are always wrong.  Not usually, always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point exactly. He can't make a point on his own he has to rely on a fictional movie to make his point for him.
> 
> And no that's not the primary use of a weapon. I didn't by any of my weapons for the purpose of not using them and I doubt many people have. I bought for the sole purpose of using them whether in self defense, defense of property, hunting, target shooting etc... I tell all my customers to practice shooting at least once a week and to practice drawing and holstering the weapon every chance they have. You want it to become second nature so when the times comes you will be prepared. To have a firearm with the primary reason to NOT shoot a criminal is the dumbest thing I've heard. I mean, why even have a gun?
> 
> Take a CHL or CCW class and they will tell you to NOT draw your weapon UNLESS you ARE going to use it. I'll concede some idiots will suggest you brandish your firearm in an attempt to demotivate the attacker, but that's just plain stupid. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it.  First, my use of a popular folklore was just a vehicle, no different than any other use of language.  Everything we read or say is based on experience, shared or not.  Would you think better of me if I quoted Shakespeare instead?  Or are you saying we should never cite popular examples. lol...
> 
> Anyhow... back to you not getting it.  Take away every good person's weapons  and you will do nothing but embolden criminals, roving gangs of well armed criminals will go home to home taking your stuff and raping your women folk.  That's what we are talking about.  You appear to have bought weapons just to shoot things.. interesting viewpoint.  While I would admit to having bought weapons to hunt, and defend my home. I would not say that the purpose of my guns is to kill criminals.  Quite the opposite.  This is the type of concept authoritarians never get.  They don't appear to have the faculty to understand solutions that do not require the use of force.
> 
> Criminals and other predators are usually cowards, if given the choice they will usually avoid injury.  Thus pass over the home of the gun nut.  Nah, what they will do instead is look for easy prey... you know.. "gun free zones."
Click to expand...


Why quote anyone, especially fictional characters? Think for yourself. That would impress me.

I think it's ok to cite examples of actual people and not fictional characters as long as it pertains to the topic and helps make your point and not a substitute.

While I'm killing those that seek to do me and my family harm, you can use the last breath of your life trying to find solutions that do not require the use of force.

When threatened, I will act. I will not rely on hoping the sight of a firearm will scare them away. And frankly I don't see the point of scaring away a person so that they can just go and prey on someone else. To me that's being a coward.  If you are too damn scared to shoot in self defense, then do not carry a weapon for self defense. 

You stated, "Criminals and other predators are usually cowards, if given the choice they will usually avoid injury.  Thus pass over the home of the gun nut.".

How can you tell which house belongs to a "gun nut"? How can you tell which "gun nut " is walking around armed?

I personally don't know any gun owners that advertise the fact that they have guns in their house.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
Click to expand...


Me scared? Not in the least bit.


Alarms systems will not protect you from harm. It will alert the police of whom will arrive after the fact. Not much to do then.


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
Click to expand...


If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman and irrelevant.  I neither argued they are "more" necessary than vehicles nor is that relevant.  So is that the standard you practice in your life?  Anything that is less necessary than your car goes in the trash can?  Oops, is your trash can more important than your car?  I hope so, otherwise you won't have one.  What a stupid argument.
> 
> And you are still evading the question.  None of this addresses the OP and what your proposal is to make your plan work.  How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?  We can't stop teenagers from getting pot.  Stop dancing.
Click to expand...


Nor can you grow guns in your basement.  This thread seems filled with nonsense comparisons.


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
Click to expand...


We have far more guns than any other country, yet we still have crime.  I think you put too much faith in guns.


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, buy an alarm ... so you can sit and wait for the police to bring ... guns!
> 
> See, your plan is actually to make sure that only government has guns.  That criminals will as well is just the cost of doing business to you.  Your goal is to have an unarmed population, the best way to have an all powerful government.
Click to expand...


Quite the fantasy your living in.  So everyone with an alarm system is for government full control?  Sure they are.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other country, yet we still have crime.  I think you put too much faith in guns.
Click to expand...


According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011.  FBI  Violent Crime

According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011.  www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf

There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK  314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman and irrelevant.  I neither argued they are "more" necessary than vehicles nor is that relevant.  So is that the standard you practice in your life?  Anything that is less necessary than your car goes in the trash can?  Oops, is your trash can more important than your car?  I hope so, otherwise you won't have one.  What a stupid argument.
> 
> And you are still evading the question.  None of this addresses the OP and what your proposal is to make your plan work.  How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?  We can't stop teenagers from getting pot.  Stop dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor can you grow guns in your basement.  This thread seems filled with nonsense comparisons.
Click to expand...


Yes, so your strategy now is to make nonsense comparisons, like between guns and cars, then chicken walk your way out of it because of nonsense comparisons?

Address the OP.  What is your proposal to get guns out of the hands of criminals, not just honest citizens, and stop dancing.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, buy an alarm ... so you can sit and wait for the police to bring ... guns!
> 
> See, your plan is actually to make sure that only government has guns.  That criminals will as well is just the cost of doing business to you.  Your goal is to have an unarmed population, the best way to have an all powerful government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the fantasy your living in.  So everyone with an alarm system is for government full control?  Sure they are.
Click to expand...


Damn, that's seriously what you thought I said?  You are either playing children's word games or you are seriously butt stupid.


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, buy an alarm ... so you can sit and wait for the police to bring ... guns!
> 
> See, your plan is actually to make sure that only government has guns.  That criminals will as well is just the cost of doing business to you.  Your goal is to have an unarmed population, the best way to have an all powerful government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the fantasy your living in.  So everyone with an alarm system is for government full control?  Sure they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, that's seriously what you thought I said?  You are either playing children's word games or you are seriously butt stupid.
Click to expand...


You pretty clearly stated this plan.  I think it's clear who the stupid one is.  That's all in your crazy little head.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other country, yet we still have crime.  I think you put too much faith in guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011.  FBI  Violent Crime
> 
> According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011.  www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf
> 
> There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK  314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.
Click to expand...


And Germany has a drastically lower homicide rate with far fewer guns.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the fantasy your living in.  So everyone with an alarm system is for government full control?  Sure they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that's seriously what you thought I said?  You are either playing children's word games or you are seriously butt stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretty clearly stated this plan.  I think it's clear who the stupid one is.  That's all in your crazy little head.
Click to expand...


Yes, I was clear.  And I did not say what you said that I said.


----------



## Theowl32

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the fantasy your living in.  So everyone with an alarm system is for government full control?  Sure they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that's seriously what you thought I said?  You are either playing children's word games or you are seriously butt stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretty clearly stated this plan.  I think it's clear who the stupid one is.  That's all in your crazy little head.
Click to expand...


Holy shit liberals are stupid.

Your username ought to be Lack of Brain.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other country, yet we still have crime.  I think you put too much faith in guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the FBI, there were 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US during 2011.  FBI  Violent Crime
> 
> According to the UK government, there were 1.94 million violent crimes in the UK during 2011.  www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_296191.pdf
> 
> There are almost exactly five times as many people in the US as in the UK  314 million vs. 63 million. The violent crime rate in the UK is 3,100 per 100,000, and in the US it is 380 per 100,000 population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Germany has a drastically lower homicide rate with far fewer guns.
Click to expand...


So what is your plan to get guns out of the hands of criminals other than by arguing that you don't like guns and evading the question?


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is not necessary?
> 
> Are you really that stupid?
> 
> What would you do if thugs invaded your home while your children were there? Ask them to line up so you could pepper spray them before they rape your wife?
> 
> I'm guessing you would lay down like a little bitch and beg them to spare your life instead of being a man and killing the rat bastards where they stood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
Click to expand...


Gun owners can't even keep from getting their own guns stolen.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
Think if you want to be a responsible gun owner you should at least not get your gun stolen.  An alarm would much better serve them.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners can't even keep from getting their own guns stolen.
> Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
> Think if you want to be a responsible gun owner you should at least not get your gun stolen.  An alarm would much better serve them.
Click to expand...


Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners can't even keep from getting their own guns stolen.
> Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
> Think if you want to be a responsible gun owner you should at least not get your gun stolen.  An alarm would much better serve them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?
Click to expand...


Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.  

So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners can't even keep from getting their own guns stolen.
> Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
> Think if you want to be a responsible gun owner you should at least not get your gun stolen.  An alarm would much better serve them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
Click to expand...


My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.


----------



## P@triot

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
Click to expand...


Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats can proclaim something a "right" which is *not* a right (healthcare) and deny things that actually are rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.).


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
Click to expand...


So Republicans are for irresponsible gun ownership.   I get it now.  I'm not so sure you guys really want to do anything about crime.  hmmmm  Does it perhaps benefit your little paranoid gun movement?  Could be.


----------



## Dr Grump

kaz said:


> Address the OP.  What is your proposal to get guns out of the hands of criminals, not just honest citizens, and stop dancing.



You can't with the US. It's too late. The place is awash with peashooters...


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats can proclaim something a "right" which is *not* a right (healthcare) and deny things that actually are rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.).



Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...


----------



## freedombecki

Dr Grump said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Address the OP. What is your proposal to get guns out of the hands of criminals, not just honest citizens, and stop dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't with the US. It's too late. The place is awash with peashooters...
Click to expand...


Gee, it's like being at Alice In Wonderland's Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

 Isn't she British?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Republicans are for irresponsible gun ownership.   I get it now.  I'm not so sure you guys really want to do anything about crime.  hmmmm  Does it perhaps benefit your little paranoid gun movement?  Could be.
Click to expand...


Actually since firearm violence is down by 67% from 1993 I would say we are doing the right thing by loosening laws for firearm carry and ownership. Murders are down by over 7000 in the same time frame.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Republicans are for irresponsible gun ownership.   I get it now.  I'm not so sure you guys really want to do anything about crime.  hmmmm  Does it perhaps benefit your little paranoid gun movement?  Could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually since firearm violence is down by 67% from 1993 I would say we are doing the right thing by loosening laws for firearm carry and ownership. Murders are down by over 7000 in the same time frame.
Click to expand...


Imagine how good we'd be doing if you weren't giving over 232,000 guns to criminals a year.  Heck we might start approaching the numbers of other countries like Germany.  But even though we have way more guns than any other country you really think that is the answer?  Is letting this guy legally carry going to help?
Gang Leader Wants Concealed Carry Permit, Alderman Pushes Gun Ban | Progress Illinois

How about school shootings this year?
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire

I'd say it's the wrong direction.


----------



## GreenBean

Steven_R said:


> The first story in the Bible after the expulsion from paradise is about a guy killing his brother with a rock. The gun is just a tool. Ban it, somehow get rid of them from every hand, and we'll still be killing each other over trivial nonsense and greed and lust.
> 
> It's not a problem with the tool, but the hand behind the tool. It's just easier to pretend it's the tool's fault when something goes pear-shaped.



A gun is a tool which simplifies the task of killing, without it the gutless cowards might hurl a few insults and leave - those with more bravado might throw a few punches and work off their anger - Given a gun - bang bang it's over. 

The problem with Gun Control as I see it - is that Government can't control the populos - they never have been able to 100% and never will be.  

We banned alcohol during prohibition - along came the speak easies and the Birth of the Mafia - and worse the Kennedy Dynasty.  We banned recreational Drugs and the Drug Cartels flourish, neighborhood drug lords rule the streets in many areas not the Police.

It all boils down to the NRA motto  





> "If you outlaw Guns only Outlaws will have Guns"


   Just Ask Colin Ferguson


----------



## Bumberclyde

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
Click to expand...

Yet you'd take away criminals' and mental cases rights to own a gun, as per the 2nd.


----------



## Theowl32

I have not read through all of the liberal bullshit in this thread. 

Have any of them given us their actual plan? Have any of them admitted that they want all guns banned? Even hunting rifles?

I do find it hilarious how when someone kills someone with a gun, they blame the NRA. Not the guy who used the gun illegally. No No No. Not him. 

You know, especially when the person that used the gun illegally happens to be....black. Oh, I am sorry.....African-American. There, did not mean to offend the PC police. 

Yes, when we see these stats in the OP, we pretty much know what that is. Instead of blaming the individuals that shot and injured kids, in classic typical, hypocritical, double talking fashion, they blame the NRA. 

Let me clarify too what they mean when they blame the "NRA." White people that are conservatives, and they will include the entire Tea Party with that. The Tea Party, who they think is the same as the KKK. Even though the Tea Party does indeed have black members. Ooooops, sorry. "African-Americans."


So, lets get back on topic shall we? Has a liberal given us their little plan on getting the 300 million guns in circulation? OH, and btw, what they really mean by that is, they will get ONLY the guns from the law abiding citizens. Who do I mean by law abiding citizens? Don't we know? Don't we?


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats can proclaim something a "right" which is *not* a right (healthcare) and deny things that actually are rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...
Click to expand...


A gun is what keeps me "healthy".

Nobody had a gun at Sandy Hook elementary thanks to idiot Dumbocrats. How did that work out? Oh, that's right, a slaughter of innocent children.

Why don't you people demand that the Secret Service disarm? Oh, that's right, because being armed keeps the president *safe*.

Fuck'n moron....


----------



## P@triot

Theowl32 said:


> I have not read through all of the liberal bullshit in this thread.
> 
> Have any of them given us their actual plan? Have any of them admitted that they want all guns banned? Even hunting rifles?
> 
> I do find it hilarious how when someone kills someone with a gun, they blame the NRA. Not the guy who used the gun illegally. No No No. Not him.
> 
> You know, especially when the person that used the gun illegally happens to be....black. Oh, I am sorry.....African-American. There, did not mean to offend the PC police.
> 
> Yes, when we see these stats in the OP, we pretty much know what that is. Instead of blaming the individuals that shot and injured kids, in classic typical, hypocritical, double talking fashion, they blame the NRA.
> 
> Let me clarify too what they mean when they blame the "NRA." White people that are conservatives, and they will include the entire Tea Party with that. The Tea Party, who they think is the same as the KKK. Even though the Tea Party does indeed have black members. Ooooops, sorry. "African-Americans."
> 
> 
> So, lets get back on topic shall we? Has a liberal given us their little plan on getting the 300 million guns in circulation? OH, and btw, what they really mean by that is, they will get ONLY the guns from the law abiding citizens. Who do I mean by law abiding citizens? Don't we know? Don't we?



Nope. As usual, they have no plan. They never do.

Their "plan" is always childish utopia (which is why the Dumbocrats have a failure rate of 100%).


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
Click to expand...


Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.

And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman and irrelevant.  I neither argued they are "more" necessary than vehicles nor is that relevant.  So is that the standard you practice in your life?  Anything that is less necessary than your car goes in the trash can?  Oops, is your trash can more important than your car?  I hope so, otherwise you won't have one.  What a stupid argument.
> 
> And you are still evading the question.  None of this addresses the OP and what your proposal is to make your plan work.  How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?  We can't stop teenagers from getting pot.  Stop dancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor can you grow guns in your basement.  This thread seems filled with nonsense comparisons.
Click to expand...


This guy is so fuck'n stupid - he thinks you can't build a gun in your basement... 

A stupid - building a gun can be done in a matter of hours. A plant takes years to grow. So the proliferation of guns would be exponentially faster than pot, _stupid_.

Why don't you keep your mouth shut on subjects you know _nothing_ about? You're not a gun expert stupid! You clearly know a _damn_ thing about them.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats can proclaim something a "right" which is *not* a right (healthcare) and deny things that actually are rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gun is what keeps me "healthy".
> 
> Nobody had a gun at Sandy Hook elementary thanks to idiot Dumbocrats. How did that work out? Oh, that's right, a slaughter of innocent children.
> 
> Why don't you people demand that the Secret Service disarm? Oh, that's right, because being armed keeps the president *safe*.
> 
> Fuck'n moron....
Click to expand...


Sandy hook shooter got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner.  You think more people providing guns to criminals is the answer?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you're full of shit.  Sporting, hunting, shooting, collecting are fun and have nothing to do with shooting people.  That you don't like guns doesn't make them worthless to anyone but you.
> 
> Second of all, you are posting the red in a thread that asks your plan, and apparently you don't have one either.  So what difference does that statement make?  And your stat is also crap, a lot of people would be affected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.
> 
> And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.
Click to expand...


I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Theowl32 said:


> I have not read through all of the liberal bullshit in this thread.
> 
> Have any of them given us their actual plan? Have any of them admitted that they want all guns banned? Even hunting rifles?
> 
> I do find it hilarious how when someone kills someone with a gun, they blame the NRA. Not the guy who used the gun illegally. No No No. Not him.
> 
> You know, especially when the person that used the gun illegally happens to be....black. Oh, I am sorry.....African-American. There, did not mean to offend the PC police.
> 
> Yes, when we see these stats in the OP, we pretty much know what that is. Instead of blaming the individuals that shot and injured kids, in classic typical, hypocritical, double talking fashion, they blame the NRA.
> 
> Let me clarify too what they mean when they blame the "NRA." White people that are conservatives, and they will include the entire Tea Party with that. The Tea Party, who they think is the same as the KKK. Even though the Tea Party does indeed have black members. Ooooops, sorry. "African-Americans."
> 
> 
> So, lets get back on topic shall we? Has a liberal given us their little plan on getting the 300 million guns in circulation? OH, and btw, what they really mean by that is, they will get ONLY the guns from the law abiding citizens. Who do I mean by law abiding citizens? Don't we know? Don't we?



I never said ban them, but you could put a fingerprint scanner on the bottom of the handle that would need to be used, say, every 24 hours, or it stops working, saving kids who would find the gun in a closet... and all stolen guns would be useless. Then, pass a law making new bullets slightly larger (and a larger barrel for the new scanner guns), making most guns without scanners obsolete over time. Put a serial number on the bullet and make it so that it survives the impact, then hold the buyer responsible also for any crime committed.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman and irrelevant.  I neither argued they are "more" necessary than vehicles nor is that relevant.  So is that the standard you practice in your life?  Anything that is less necessary than your car goes in the trash can?  Oops, is your trash can more important than your car?  I hope so, otherwise you won't have one.  What a stupid argument.
> 
> And you are still evading the question.  None of this addresses the OP and what your proposal is to make your plan work.  How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns?  We can't stop teenagers from getting pot.  Stop dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor can you grow guns in your basement.  This thread seems filled with nonsense comparisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This guy is so fuck'n stupid - he thinks you can't build a gun in your basement...
> 
> A stupid - building a gun can be done in a matter of hours. A plant takes years to grow. So the proliferation of guns would be exponentially faster than pot, _stupid_.
> 
> Why don't you keep your mouth shut on subjects you know _nothing_ about? You're not a gun expert stupid! You clearly know a _damn_ thing about them.
Click to expand...


Haha please document your building a gun in your basement from raw materials.  I'd love to see you back up what your saying for once.  Please document the tools needed and costs of everything.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.
> 
> And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
Click to expand...


No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.

Try another lame ass tactic.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.
> 
> And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.*
> 
> Try another lame ass tactic.
Click to expand...


Strawman comeback.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.
> 
> And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.
> 
> Try another lame ass tactic.
Click to expand...


Your side always brings up automobiles.  I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm



Wow, so in the Wasthington Navy Yard, Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, if they had security systems and safes, they wouldn't have needed a gun?   Women who are gunned down by their estranged husbands, people who own or work at liquor stores that are robbed, people who are robbed on the street, they just need security systems and safes and they are safe?  If your home is broken into, instead of having a gun, you just wait with the criminals until the cops get there with guns and you don't need a gun!  Maybe the criminals will play cards with you while you wait.

I see why you call yourself the brain.  Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.


----------



## kaz

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty close to the number of cars that were stolen.  Criminals steal everything, what conclusion do you draw from this exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
Click to expand...


Liberals make up rights that are not in the Constitution, including the right to health care, the right to free birth control, the right to have your rights read to you, the right for government to take property from one citizen to another, the right to gay marriage, the right to an abortion, the right for government to restrict Christianity and Judaism, the right for government to confiscate money and redistribute it, the right to use the military for non-defensive purposes, the right for the President and Supreme Court to bypass the legislature and create and modify legislation, ... 

But rights that are actually there, those are negotiable.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals this seems like a pretty important fact.  232,400 per year are stolen?  I thought people keep these things to avoid being criminalized?  Doesn't seem like it could be working very well to me.  So gun companies make guns, people buy guns to keep criminals away, criminals then steal these guns from the people, people buy more guns...  Quite the circle it is, I bet the NRA doesn't talk about this one.
> 
> So I guess if we want to keep guns away from criminals we need to give gun owners an incentive to be more responsible and not lose their guns to criminals.  They should probably all invest in security systems and more safes.  Of course if they do that they don't really need the gun in the first place do they?  hmmmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My RIGHT to own firearms is not up for debate. And it is an infringement on that right to make security systems a requirement for ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Republicans are for irresponsible gun ownership.   I get it now.  I'm not so sure you guys really want to do anything about crime.  hmmmm  Does it perhaps benefit your little paranoid gun movement?  Could be.
Click to expand...


Do you only support the right to responsible free speech, freedom of religion, right to an abortion, protection from warrant-less search and seizures, right to a trial?  Or are they actually rights?


----------



## kaz

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Dumbocrats can proclaim something a "right" which is *not* a right (healthcare) and deny things that actually are rights (1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...
Click to expand...


Swish.  Our view of how important something is would be measured by how much we want government to provide it for us????



Dude, it's the reverse.  The more we love it, the more we want government OUT of it.  BTW, we want government out of both.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A guns only purpose is to kill? Really? Then how do you explain that the Secret Service surrounds the president with a wicked arsenal of fully automatic weapons?!? If a gun's only purpose is to kill, isn't your president in mortal danger right now? And why aren't you demanding that the Secret Service disarm [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION]?
> 
> Furthermore, I thought you "cared" about human life? If that's true, then you wouldn't care about the "intent" of the cause of the death - you'd only care about stopping it. If it's not true, and you don't care about human life, then you are despicable piece of shit for pretending to care in order to further an irrational agenda.
> 
> So which is it junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure have a skill at wording things stupidly.  What do you think would happen if the secret service fired those guns?  Death of course.  I'll just repeat myself since nothing you said changes it:
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
Click to expand...


So then the Secret Service are just trained assassins then, right? Because they are heavily armed 24x7 and if a guns "only purpose" is to "kill", then the Secret Service exists only to kill. And in which case, the president should be in *mortal* *danger* right now. So why aren't you panic-stricken and calling for the Secret Service to be immediately disarmed?

How does it feel being my bitch on USMB? I'm taking your irrational argument and exposing it for the ignorant drivel that it is.

A gun exist for one purpose and one purpose ONLY - security. A gun creates peace. Evil doesn't fuck with armed people. Evil fucks with unarmed, helpless sheep. That's why Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook elementary and not a police station (or the White House), _stupid_. Because he knew there were unarmed victims at Sandy Hook just waiting for him.

Come on _stupid_ - tell us again how guns are only for "killing". Everyone is laughing at your idiocy....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.*
> 
> Try another lame ass tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman comeback.
Click to expand...


It's not a strawman you idiot.

No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.

That's a fact!


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cars have a purpose other than death.  They are called accidents for a reason.  Guns killing is no accident, that is their only purpose.  Your really in no position to call anyone else stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is *if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse*.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
Click to expand...


Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.

The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.
> 
> Try another lame ass tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side always brings up automobiles.  I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is.
Click to expand...


The topic isn't about automobiles and bringing automobiles up is what's ridiculous.

I'm on the side of the Constitution, I guess that puts you on the opposing side.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how some people find it more important to own a gun that worry about their health...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gun is what keeps me "healthy".
> 
> Nobody had a gun at Sandy Hook elementary thanks to idiot Dumbocrats. How did that work out? Oh, that's right, a slaughter of innocent children.
> 
> Why don't you people demand that the Secret Service disarm? Oh, that's right, because being armed keeps the president *safe*.
> 
> Fuck'n moron....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sandy hook shooter got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner.  You think more people providing guns to criminals is the answer?
Click to expand...


No - I think having more armed (and well trained) law-abiding citizens is the answer. But hey, keep providing a false narrative that I want "more criminals with guns" because you've had your ass handed to you with facts. It only proves your immaturity and ignorance when you pretend that I've said absurd things like "I want more criminals with guns".


----------



## P@triot

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.*
> 
> Try another lame ass tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman comeback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
Click to expand...


You have to remember LL - when a Dumbocrat ecounters an intelligent, informed opposition, they panic. They realize they can't win the battle of the minds, so they resort to irrationally screaming one of two things: "racist" or "strawman".

The fact that they can't articulate _why_ it is a strawman proves that it is *not* a "strawman".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Rottweiler said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman comeback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to remember LL - when a Dumbocrat ecounters an intelligent, informed opposition, they panic. They realize they can't win the battle of the minds, so they resort to irrationally screaming one of two things: "racist" or "strawman".
> 
> The fact that they can't articulate _why_ it is a strawman proves that it is *not* a "strawman".
Click to expand...


I believe the 180 pages of this thread proves you are correct.


----------



## Theowl32

Yeah, no plan at all. 

Basically, a liberal is truly concerned about one major thing. Acceptance from each other. They need to get the pats on the back from those that think like them. That means, they really do not care about the actual topic that they hype incessantly. From gay marriage, to man made global warming (laughing at that), to WMDs in Iraq (they sure as shit did not protest when Clinton bombed Iraq for WMDs), Gitmo being open (considering it is still open and no protests from code stink), etc etc etc. 

In fact most liberals (the ignorant pawns which means all of the liberals on this board) really want to know two things. Where is the party, and where is my next orgasm coming from? 

There are literally millions of left wing women who would gladly bend over and spread em if you are a good enough socialist and hate republicans enough. 

This is just another topic that liberals feign fake outrage over. They get all worked up into a frenzy. They yell and dance like tards in the street. They will do it again when the next mass shooting takes place. Rinse repeat. 

Yet, not one of them have come up with a real plan. As far as I can see, they pretty much deny that they want all guns banned, yet that is pretty much what they want. Also, most importantly, what most of these pawns do not know, is the commies on the left are desperately looking for a way to disarm the right wing populace of law abiding citizens. That is what they do not know. 

We will be waiting for one of you to tell us what the plan is to get all of those guns. 

Ladies and gentlemen.......

Liberals and guns and Hollywood

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zemrWBIc_hE]Andrew Shepard's Speech From The American President - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns. Period.*
> 
> Try another lame ass tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman comeback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
Click to expand...

Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman comeback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.
Click to expand...


What you said is the strawman.  Here is what the Constitution says.  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is what we are arguing.  What you are arguing is that you are not infringing on the right unless you completely ban it. Google the definition of the word "infringed" since you clearly don't know what it means.

Also, the distinction with what you are arguing with banning them is irrelevant.  None of the dead people in the Washington Navy Yard are not dead because technically they were not banned from owning a gun.  They did not have the gun when they were being shot at, so they were not able to shoot back.  Guns were banned.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman comeback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.
Click to expand...


You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.

Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns. 

Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?

This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced. 

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:


All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).

Read the full legislation here.

As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.
> 
> Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.
> 
> Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?
> 
> This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.
> 
> What the bill does:
> 
> The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
> 
> 
> All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
> All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
> All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
> All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
> 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
> 
> Read the full legislation here.
> 
> As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.
Click to expand...

Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  In addition to self defense, they are used for, food, sport and collecting.  This has been well covered.
> 
> It's also irrelevant.  You have no plan for criminals to not actually get guns, which means honest citizens being armed in self defense is warranted regardless of what "other" purpose guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is *if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse*.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.
> 
> The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.
Click to expand...


Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then?  How would people get to work?  How would grocery stores get food?  How would any business get products to sell?  How would customers get there?  Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.
> 
> Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.
> 
> Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?
> 
> This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.
> 
> What the bill does:
> 
> The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
> 
> 
> All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
> All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
> All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
> All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
> 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
> 
> Read the full legislation here.
> 
> As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
Click to expand...


Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is *if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse*.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.
> 
> The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then?  How would people get to work?  How would grocery stores get food?  How would any business get products to sell?  How would customers get there?  Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid, this thread isn't about automobiles and trying to compare cars to guns is equally stupid. We have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, not so with automobiles.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.
> 
> Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.
> 
> Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?
> 
> This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.
> 
> What the bill does:
> 
> The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
> 
> 
> All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
> All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
> All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
> All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
> 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
> 
> Read the full legislation here.
> 
> As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Click to expand...


But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  The country is a better place because of that.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
Click to expand...


Who started talking cars?  Haha


----------



## OKTexas

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a strawman you idiot.
> 
> No law abiding citizen is going to lose their guns.
> 
> That's a fact!
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I agree with you, that's why it's a strawman argument. You think people who are for stricter gun control want to outlaw guns completely. That's not only impossible, but not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said is the strawman.  Here is what the Constitution says.  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> That is what we are arguing.  What you are arguing is that you are not infringing on the right unless you completely ban it. Google the definition of the word "infringed" since you clearly don't know what it means.
> 
> Also, the distinction with what you are arguing with banning them is irrelevant.  None of the dead people in the Washington Navy Yard are not dead because technically they were not banned from owning a gun.  They did not have the gun when they were being shot at, so they were not able to shoot back.  Guns were banned.
Click to expand...


You left out three very important words in your quote of the second amendment it says, "the right *of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We can never let these commie slime balls forget that."


----------



## Bumberclyde

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.
> 
> Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.
> 
> Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?
> 
> This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.
> 
> What the bill does:
> 
> The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
> 
> 
> All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
> All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
> All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
> All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
> 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
> 
> Read the full legislation here.
> 
> As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Click to expand...

You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want. 
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Click to expand...


When one has no valid argument they resort to crap like you just did.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.


Actually, it specifically addresses that.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seriously, if you don't know what 'infringed" means, Google it.  But the upshot is that you can bear any weapon you want.



Bumberclyde said:


> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?



Dude, you asked and I answered this.  From the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

You can remove the right to bear arms if you have gone through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  Again, if you don't know what that means, Google it.  Don't just keep repeating the question.  The answer to your question is very straight forward and it's black and white.  You can remove those rights, but only through the due process of law.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who started talking cars?  Haha
Click to expand...


I did! To illustrate two things about you:


*You don't care about human life*


*You pretend to as a reason for your irrational fear of an inanimate object*


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. *It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want*.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Click to expand...


It doesn't?!?! 

"*...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*"

Notice that it doesn't say muskets? Or revolvers? Or cannons? It says _arms_.

arms
/ärmz/

noun
plural noun: arms

1. *weapons and ammunition*; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are necessary.  You really want to argue that guns are more necessary than cars and trucks?  Nobody can be that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.
> 
> And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
Click to expand...


Two words: Sandy Hook

Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another epic fail! Who said anything about banning guns? Anyone? Certainly not I. Making things safer as technology improves, yes, for ANY product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?
> 
> And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?
> 
> As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.
Click to expand...


Nice try - but you're _wrong_. "A" for effort though!

Every mall or theater that has experienced a shooting that I'm aware of over the past 5 years or so banned guns.

_Aurora was the ONLY theater within 20 minutes of James Holmes apartment which banned guns. And, it was further away from other theaters which were also showing Batman that day. So why did Holmes drive farther away? The answer is so painfully obvious, I won't even say it.....

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killers apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the *only* one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the *only* one with a sign posted at the theaters entrance.

According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killers apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemarks Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message.* The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible*. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. *But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns*._

Proving once again the guns create peace and security and banning guns create victim zones. Sad. Very sad. These tragedies could be so easily avoided if Dumbocrats weren't hell bent on the destruction of America. The blood is all over your hands liberals.

*Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?*


----------



## P@triot

I would like to publicly *apologize* to [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]. I made a comment in one of these posts about him wanting to ban guns. He has since stated on multiple occasions that he does not want to ban guns.

That is my mistake for jumping to conclusions and I would like to apologize for doing that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not intelligent enough to know what I or anyone else thinks.
> 
> Fact is you moron, there are people that want to ban guns.
> 
> Can you say "Diane Feinstein"?
> 
> This is the summary of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 she introduced.
> 
> What the bill does:
> 
> The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:
> 
> 
> All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
> All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
> All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
> All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
> All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
> 157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this page).
> 
> Read the full legislation here.
> 
> As far as I know, no one on the right has accused liberal idiots of wanting to ban ALL guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

As Justice Scalia correctly observed in_ Heller_: 



> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:*  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support *in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.* Pp. 5456.
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER



Consequently, jurisdictions are at liberty to prohibit the possession of firearms determined to be dangerous and unusual, and such prohibitions do not manifest an infringement on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment where the courts find those prohibitions warranted based on the evidence.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> More people die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns. More _children_ die every year from automobile accidents than they do from guns.
> 
> And yet all you want to do is focus on the object which causes *less* deaths. Where is your call to ban automobiles? Why - because you like them? Because you have an irrational fear of guns since you've never shot one? Because you were brainwashed by the media and mommy & daddy to fear them and you're weak minded?
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat is so fuck'n stupid as  to lose their fuck'n mind over something that causes *less* death and embrace and celebrate something which causes *more* death...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who started talking cars?  Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did! To illustrate two things about you:
> 
> 
> *You don't care about human life*
> 
> 
> *You pretend to as a reason for your irrational fear of an inanimate object*
Click to expand...


And you did neither.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second brainless - I thought this was about people dying - not "necessity"? You can't seem to keep a consistent narrative. The minute we point out that automobiles cause more deaths yet you irrationally focus on guns, you change the reason why you are against guns.
> 
> And by the way stupid, guns are a billion times more necessary than automobiles. Take guns away from the military, the Secret Service, and the police and tell me how things would work out? Answer: you're brainless, dickless, ignorant ass wouldn't have the freedom to irrationally cry about guns on a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two words: Sandy Hook
> 
> Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.
Click to expand...


Clearly your very slow.  The scenario was all guns disappear.  In that case there is no Sandy Hook.  That sounds kinda nice doesn't it?   And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high.  I've been doing it my whole life actually.  And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  The Washington Navy Yard is the perfect example.  People who had guns and knew how to use them were slaughtered.  What difference did their guns make when rules prevented them from having them or using them when they were being shot and killed?
> 
> And as I keep asking you, why do these shootings keep happening at the places like schools, malls and theaters that everyone knows is the least likely place for other people to have guns?  Why do you suppose murderers pick THOSE spots exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're against new technologies making gun safer, especially for children, and not work when stolen?
> 
> As for why people pick those spots? Columbine and other places were about revenge on students and/or teachers. Theatres have people packing, so do malls. The last theatre shooting was an ex-cop shooting someone over popcorn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try - but you're _wrong_. "A" for effort though!
> 
> Every mall or theater that has experienced a shooting that I'm aware of over the past 5 years or so banned guns.
> 
> _Aurora was the ONLY theater within 20 minutes of James Holmes apartment which banned guns. And, it was further away from other theaters which were also showing Batman that day. So why did Holmes drive farther away? The answer is so painfully obvious, I won't even say it.....
> 
> So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killers apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.
> 
> Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the *only* one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.
> 
> Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the *only* one with a sign posted at the theaters entrance.
> 
> According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killers apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemarks Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.
> 
> There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message.* The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible*. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. *But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns*._
> 
> Proving once again the guns create peace and security and banning guns create victim zones. Sad. Very sad. These tragedies could be so easily avoided if Dumbocrats weren't hell bent on the destruction of America. The blood is all over your hands liberals.
> 
> *Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?*
Click to expand...


Of course if it wasn't for you gun nuts we might have put something in place so this guy didn't have a gun.  He did threaten his psychologist after all.  Clearly he was nuts and it was known, but the gun people won't let us put anything in place to stop these crimes.  Instead they say we need more guns when we already have more than any other country.  I guess 232,000 guns going to criminals each year isn't enough for them.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the comparison is complete nonsense.  Cars are necessary for transportation and there is no alternative.  Guns are not necessary and you could use pepper spray as an alternative.  The fact is *if we woke up tomorrow with no cars or trucks our country would collapse*.  If we woke up with no guns then 99.9% of citizens would be unaffected.  The only people affected would be the paranoid gun nuts scared to come out because Bigfoot will get them.  But they need a good doctor, not a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.
> 
> The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then?  How would people get to work?  How would grocery stores get food?  How would any business get products to sell?  How would customers get there?  Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.
Click to expand...


There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless continues to illustrate is stupidity to the world. There were no cars in the 1800's, the 1700's, the 1600's, the 1500's, the....well, you get the point. And the world did NOT "collapse". Furthermore, the Amish operate without automobiles every day and they are thriving.
> 
> The only thing that is going to cause the world to "collapse" is ignorant Dumbocrat marxist policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then?  How would people get to work?  How would grocery stores get food?  How would any business get products to sell?  How would customers get there?  Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?
Click to expand...


You really can't follow along very well can you?


----------



## Spoonman

Luddly Neddite said:


> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.



now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that  without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.  

another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers.  You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children.  You shot your load and it was blanks.


----------



## Brain357

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that  without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers.  You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children.  You shot your load and it was blanks.
Click to expand...


And now no children are any safer.  Great big win for the gun nuts right?  
The legacy of the gun nuts:
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  The country is a better place because of that.
Click to expand...


And once again the liberal illustrates their complete and total ignorance in front of the world.

It is 100% legal to purchase a *fully* automatic gun. Furthermore, it is legal to purchase a fully automatic gun with a silencer. I shoot them _all_ the time.

Yes - they do require specific paperwork to be submitted to the ATF. But they are legal to buy and are sold all over America every day.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so no cars or trucks would be no problem then?  How would people get to work?  How would grocery stores get food?  How would any business get products to sell?  How would customers get there?  Just when I think you've hit a new high in dumb you shoot even higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really can't follow along very well can you?
Click to expand...


I do follow along very well - which is why I'm able to illustrate just how dumb you are.

You said the world would "collapse". When I proved it wouldn't (the Amish being among the most obvious proof), you them came back with the childish "oh, so it would be no problem"?

Of course it would be a _problem_. But it wouldn't "collapse" the world.

Now tell us again junior how nobody can buy a fully automatic gun in 2014...


----------



## Spoonman

Brain357 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that  without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers.  You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children.  You shot your load and it was blanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now no children are any safer.  Great big win for the gun nuts right?
> The legacy of the gun nuts:
> January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
Click to expand...


great big failure for Obama and the democrats.  instead of going after the problem they went for their agenda.  they went after legal gun owners.  kids are no safer today because of gun grabbers and agenda driven democrats


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33 gun deaths every day
> 35 thousand since Sandy Hook
> 2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
> 95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
> 
> But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that  without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers.  You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children.  You shot your load and it was blanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now no children are any safer.  Great big win for the gun nuts right?
> The legacy of the gun nuts:
> January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
Click to expand...


And what do all 11 of those schools have in common? *No* guns. The complete and total absence of guns. Now lets look at places were guns were prevalent:

White House (0 shootings in the month of January)

Police Stations (0 shootings in the month of January)

NRA meetings (0 shootings in the month of January)

Area 51 (0 shootings in the month of January)

Fort Knox (0 shootings in the month of January)

Wow - the math is shockingly clear here. Only an idiot Dumbocrat couldn't figure this one out.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  The country is a better place because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again the liberal illustrates their complete and total ignorance in front of the world.
> 
> It is 100% legal to purchase a *fully* automatic gun. Furthermore, it is legal to purchase a fully automatic gun with a silencer. I shoot them _all_ the time.
> 
> Yes - they do require specific paperwork to be submitted to the ATF. But they are legal to buy and are sold all over America every day.
Click to expand...


Once again you prove your not very smart.  Ok so I said you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  Now for those of us that understand the English language that means a person cannot go out and buy a full auto gun that has just been manufactured(brand new) in 2014.  So tell everyone again how you can go out to the gun store and buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that  without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers.  You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children.  You shot your load and it was blanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now no children are any safer.  Great big win for the gun nuts right?
> The legacy of the gun nuts:
> January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what do all 11 of those schools have in common? *No* guns. The complete and total absence of guns. Now lets look at places were guns were prevalent:
> 
> White House (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Police Stations (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> NRA meetings (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Area 51 (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Fort Knox (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Wow - the math is shockingly clear here. Only an idiot Dumbocrat couldn't figure this one out.
Click to expand...


Well we have had gun free school zones since like 1990.  So that has not changed.  What has changed is we have more guns and more school shootings.  Sorry, you fail.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't follow along very well can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do follow along very well - which is why I'm able to illustrate just how dumb you are.
> 
> You said the world would "collapse". When I proved it wouldn't (the Amish being among the most obvious proof), you them came back with the childish "oh, so it would be no problem"?
> 
> Of course it would be a _problem_. But it wouldn't "collapse" the world.
> 
> Now tell us again junior how nobody can buy a fully automatic gun in 2014...
Click to expand...


Yes  I was mocking you.  And no you didn't prove that it wouldn't collapse.  Now here is your chance:
How would people get to work?   Please note we have a commuting society now.  Lots of people drive an hour to work.
How would a business stay open with workers who can't get to work, customers who can't travel that far, and no new products because there is no trucks to bring them.
How would people eat when the grocery stores can't get food?
How would people get medicine without trucks shipping to drug stores?

Sorry but it would be quite the collapse.  Your reason for it not collapsing was because we didn't always have cars?  Yes and then people were mostly farmers or lived close to their work.  It's amazing how little grasp you have of reality.  Though not surprising I suppose.


----------



## Wildman

*Yes - they do require specific paperwork to be submitted to the ATF. But they are legal to buy and are sold all over America every day.*

a used M16 will set you back about *$12,500.00* a NIB M16 will run as high as *$25,000.00.*

liberfools seem to "feeeel" that every common criminal has a full auto going around spraying bullets like throwing confetti.

can you liberals imagine a common street thug *buying* an M16 ?? even stealing one would be very difficult, as most of them held in private citizens collection are secured in vaults or one ton+ safes.


----------



## Bumberclyde

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When one has no valid argument they resort to crap like you just did.
Click to expand...

When you have nothing, just call it crap.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it specifically addresses that.
> 
> "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seriously, if you don't know what 'infringed" means, Google it.  But the upshot is that you can bear any weapon you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you asked and I answered this.  From the Fifth Amendment:
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> You can remove the right to bear arms if you have gone through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  Again, if you don't know what that means, Google it.  Don't just keep repeating the question.  The answer to your question is very straight forward and it's black and white.  You can remove those rights, but only through the due process of law.
Click to expand...

First you say your right to bear arms can't be violated, then you say the 5th can violate your rights. Do you need a minute to make up your mind?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

I've realized that in order to see how utterly ignorant liberals are, get them in a discussion about gun control. Their ignorance is blinding.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  The country is a better place because of that.
Click to expand...


Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bumberclyde said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Click to expand...


Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms. 

Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  The country is a better place because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.
Click to expand...


No you can't.  You can't buy one made after 1986.
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
> 
> Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
Click to expand...


And many arms are banned.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> As Justice Scalia correctly observed in_ Heller_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:*  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support *in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.* Pp. 5456.
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consequently, jurisdictions are at liberty to prohibit the possession of firearms determined to be dangerous and unusual, and such prohibitions do not manifest an infringement on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment where the courts find those prohibitions warranted based on the evidence.
Click to expand...


Scalia did not say that law abiding citizens should not carry weapons, nor is he advocating a weapons ban. He's saying felons and the mentally ill should not be allowed to have weapons and I think us "gun nuts" would agree. Hew also reiterated laws that are already in place concerning "sensitive" areas. IMO this is an issue worthy of debate.

It is and has been illegal to carry a weapon in a menacing and dangerous manner even with a CCW permit, that is not being challenged by any "gun nut". 

So what you presented did not help your case at all. In fact it strengthened ours.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun.  The country is a better place because of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't.  You can't buy one made after 1986.
> Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Want to bet?

The Hughes Amendment:

BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.

After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.

 Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.

The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation


Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:

Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
> 
> Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many arms are banned.
Click to expand...


If I'm not mistaken the only firearms that are illegal to own is a short barreled rifle/shotgun. With barrels shorter then 16/18 inches.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't.  You can't buy one made after 1986.
> Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> The Hughes Amendment:
> 
> BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
> 
> After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.
> 
> Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.
> 
> The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation
> 
> 
> Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:
> 
> Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.
Click to expand...


While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one.  Sorry.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't.  You can't buy one made after 1986.
> Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> The Hughes Amendment:
> 
> BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
> 
> After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.
> 
> Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.
> 
> The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation
> 
> 
> Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:
> 
> Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


Sure you can, the only thing is that the receivers are to be pre-1986. 

You can buy a brand new AR-15 swap out the receiver and you have a brand new full auto weapon.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
> 
> Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And many arms are banned.
Click to expand...


Arms are any weapon, like nukes, cruise missiles... which you aren't allowed to own. So your rights are already being infringed. And mental health background checks to deny people the right to pack is also an infringement. Denying criminals guns also. And you admitted that short barrel shotguns are illegal. So, in fact, you already don't mind that your rights are already being violated and just accept it.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> The Hughes Amendment:
> 
> BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
> 
> After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.
> 
> Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.
> 
> The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation
> 
> 
> Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:
> 
> Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you can, the only thing is that the receivers are to be pre-1986.
> 
> You can buy a brand new AR-15 swap out the receiver and you have a brand new full auto weapon.
Click to expand...


Oh it took some work but you admit I'm right.

So you're saying you can legally change a gun to full auto?  Where can you legally buy this receiver?  A link to someone selling would be nice.   Now you've been proven wrong already so answer carefully.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Of course if it wasn't for you gun nuts we might have put something in place so this guy didn't have a gun.  He did threaten his psychologist after all.  Clearly he was nuts and it was known, but the gun people won't let us put anything in place to stop these crimes.  Instead they say we need more guns when we already have more than any other country.  I guess 232,000 guns going to criminals each year isn't enough for them.



Irrelevant since you haven't presented any plan that would keep guns away from criminals other than pretending that laws that don't work for drugs would work for guns...


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it specifically addresses that.
> 
> "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seriously, if you don't know what 'infringed" means, Google it.  But the upshot is that you can bear any weapon you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms?  Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you asked and I answered this.  From the Fifth Amendment:
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> You can remove the right to bear arms if you have gone through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  Again, if you don't know what that means, Google it.  Don't just keep repeating the question.  The answer to your question is very straight forward and it's black and white.  You can remove those rights, but only through the due process of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you say your right to bear arms can't be violated, then you say the 5th can violate your rights. Do you need a minute to make up your mind?
Click to expand...




You're mixing and matching questions and answers, it doesn't work that way.

The first statement was in regard to whether a citizen can carry "any weapon" they want.  I said that restricting weapons types infringes on the right to bear arms.

In the second, you asked about criminals and the insane, if they have the same rights.  I said they do unless their rights were removed with the due process of law.

You are applying the first answer to the second question.  Seriously, liberals have the intellectual capacity of eight year olds.  It was butt obvious what each answer meant.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
> 
> Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And many arms are banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arms are any weapon, like nukes, cruise missiles... which you aren't allowed to own. So your rights are already being infringed. And mental health background checks to deny people the right to pack is also an infringement. Denying criminals guns also. And you admitted that short barrel shotguns are illegal. So, in fact, you already don't mind that your rights are already being violated and just accept it.
Click to expand...


The Constitution says that you have the right to bear arms, it does not say government has to provide them to you.  Getting nukes or cruise missiles would be quite a trick.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now no children are any safer.  Great big win for the gun nuts right?
> The legacy of the gun nuts:
> January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what do all 11 of those schools have in common? *No* guns. The complete and total absence of guns. Now lets look at places were guns were prevalent:
> 
> White House (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Police Stations (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> NRA meetings (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Area 51 (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Fort Knox (0 shootings in the month of January)
> 
> Wow - the math is shockingly clear here. Only an idiot Dumbocrat couldn't figure this one out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we have had gun free school zones since like 1990.  So that has not changed.  What has changed is we have more guns and more school shootings.  Sorry, you fail.
Click to expand...


And we've been experiencing school shootings since 1764 (yep - before we even declared our independence from Britain) by Native American Indians.

_The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only three children survived._

 [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION] - you continue to humiliate yourself by pretending to be knowledgable on a subject (security) that you know absolutely *nothing* about.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can, the only thing is that the receivers are to be pre-1986.
> 
> You can buy a brand new AR-15 swap out the receiver and you have a brand new full auto weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it took some work but you admit I'm right.
> 
> So you're saying you can legally change a gun to full auto?  Where can you legally buy this receiver?  A link to someone selling would be nice.   Now you've been proven wrong already so answer carefully.
Click to expand...


No but the fact is new receivers aren't available to the general public. Reconditioned receivers are.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say take guns from those people.  Please explain how the average citizen would be more affected by the loss of his gun than his car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: Sandy Hook
> 
> Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly your very slow.  The scenario was all guns disappear.  In that case there is no Sandy Hook.  That sounds kinda nice doesn't it?   And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high.  I've been doing it my whole life actually.  And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.
Click to expand...


Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.

All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.

In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.

Want to try again junior?


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  Try an alarm system, much more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If alarms were the more effective defense, there'd never be a bank robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have far more guns than any other country, yet we still have crime.  I think you put too much faith in guns.
Click to expand...


Other nations either have more homogeneous populations or they are better at punishing their criminals.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two words: Sandy Hook
> 
> Without my gun, I can't properly defend myself and my family. I don't die if someone takes my vehicle away from me. There is a good chance of dying if someone takes my gun away from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your very slow.  The scenario was all guns disappear.  In that case there is no Sandy Hook.  That sounds kinda nice doesn't it?   And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high.  I've been doing it my whole life actually.  And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.
> 
> All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.
> 
> In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
Click to expand...


But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he almost shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  *Try an alarm system, much more effective*.



Here we see brainless once again pretending to be an expert on something he knows *nothing* about.

First of all, a wealthy Florida couple (Byrd & Melanie Billings) which took in many children as foster parents were brutally murdered in a home invasion. The perpetrators were actually lead by a former U.S. special forces operator. There were half a dozen people involved in the home invasion and one of them had the responsibility for dismantling the security system.

Now, this made NATIONAL headline news for weeks. But asshats like brainless here remain ignorant of reality 24x7 while pretending like they are "experts" on the subject.

Second, and much more importantly, here is how a security system works (something brainless here knows nothing about). You alarm is "tripped" - the police do NOT receive that notification. The company you contract with does (Brinks, ADT, etc.). That company immediately tries to call your house. If unable to reach you, they try the next number on your list (most likely your cell). After no response, they go to the third number on your list. Now, lets say that third number is a family member in your area. By this time, at least 5 minutes have gone by (more than enough time for someone to kill you). Your family member answers, and is told by the company that there is an alarm at your house. The family member says "let me see if I can get ahold of them". When they can't, they call the company back and tell them to send police. Depending on the city, the average response time for police is anywhere from 5 minutes to 12 minutes (and even worse in some cases). So by now, we're between 15 - 30 minutes. More than enough time for an intruder to kill you, make a sandwich, eat it, and then leave without being caught.

And this is brainless here idea of "much more effective" compared to a gun? 

Keep talking stupid! All you're doing is illustrating your ignorance for the world. Love when people like you _pretend_ to be "experts" on things you know *nothing* about.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your very slow.  The scenario was all guns disappear.  In that case there is no Sandy Hook.  That sounds kinda nice doesn't it?   And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high.  I've been doing it my whole life actually.  And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.
> 
> All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.
> 
> In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.
Click to expand...


Actually, he wasn't at the shooting, he was near by and came by after the shots.  But even if he were there, what difference would that have made to the discussion?



Brain357 said:


> In fact he almost shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.



The guy who took the gun from the shooter was not threatening anyone with it, and the guy didn't shoot him.  Sounds like a crazy situation worked.  If you take a gun from a shooter in a crowd, would you not realize that getting the gun and possibly yourself on the ground immediately would be a best practice?  Seriously, anyone could have shot him in the commotion, it was a dangerous situation. Again how that leads to supporting anything you're arguing is certainly a mystery though.


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  *Try an alarm system, much more effective*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see brainless once again pretending to be an expert on something he knows *nothing* about.
> 
> First of all, a wealthy Florida couple (Byrd & Melanie Billings) which took in many children as foster parents were brutally murdered in a home invasion. The perpetrators were actually lead by a former U.S. special forces operator. There were half a dozen people involved in the home invasion and one of them had the responsibility for dismantling the security system.
> 
> Now, this made NATIONAL headline news for weeks. But asshats like brainless here remain ignorant of reality 24x7 while pretending like they are "experts" on the subject.
> 
> Second, and much more importantly, here is how a security system works (something brainless here knows nothing about). You alarm is "tripped" - the police do NOT receive that notification. The company you contract with does (Brinks, ADT, etc.). That company immediately tries to call your house. If unable to reach you, they try the next number on your list (most likely your cell). After no response, they go to the third number on your list. Now, lets say that third number is a family member in your area. By this time, at least 5 minutes have gone by (more than enough time for someone to kill you). Your family member answers, and is told by the company that there is an alarm at your house. The family member says "let me see if I can get ahold of them". When they can't, they call the company back and tell them to send police. Depending on the city, the average response time for police is anywhere from 5 minutes to 12 minutes (and even worse in some cases). So by now, we're between 15 - 30 minutes. More than enough time for an intruder to kill you, make a sandwich, eat it, and then leave without being caught.
> 
> And this is brainless here idea of "much more effective" compared to a gun?
> 
> Keep talking stupid! All you're doing is illustrating your ignorance for the world. Love when people like you _pretend_ to be "experts" on things you know *nothing* about.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for his explanation how a security system would have helped the people at any of the shootings, Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Columbine, ...


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your very slow.  The scenario was all guns disappear.  In that case there is no Sandy Hook.  That sounds kinda nice doesn't it?   And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high.  I've been doing it my whole life actually.  And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.
> 
> All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.
> 
> In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he almost shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.
Click to expand...


Wait a second!!! You just gave a scenario in which you said (and I quote) "all guns disappear" and you want to talk to *me* about "the real world"?!? 

Second, you continue to illustrate your extraordinary ignorance on every topic. There were *no* armed CCW licensed individuals on site when the shooting occurred. The first to arrive was a man named Joseph Zamudio - who did so after Loughner had been tackled to the ground and subdued.

You are such a vintage liberal. You're completely and totally ignorant of the facts. You read left-wing propaganda drivel and drink the shit down as "reality" without _any_ research. In short, you're ignorant, lazy, and a liar. In other words, the perfect Dumbocrat.

Had someone been armed that day, Loughner wouldn't have barely been able to get off 3 shots before being taken down.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter. * In fact he almost shot the wrong person*.  Now that's reality.



Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does *not*).

His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "*almost*" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander *almost* shot the wrong person.... 

Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider *almost* doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter. * In fact he almost shot the wrong person*.  Now that's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does *not*).
> 
> His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "*almost*" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander *almost* shot the wrong person....
> 
> Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider *almost* doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...
Click to expand...


He's just pointing out that while the criminal shot his target, the honest citizen didn't shoot anyone, which proves that we need gun laws that keep guns from honest citizens that don't keep guns from criminals.  You're not buying that, Rottweiler?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My home has never been invaded by thugs, nor has the home of anyone I know.  Statistically I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery than that happening.  So since I'm not a scared little paranoid person like you it's not necessary.  *Try an alarm system, much more effective*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see brainless once again pretending to be an expert on something he knows *nothing* about.
> 
> First of all, a wealthy Florida couple (Byrd & Melanie Billings) which took in many children as foster parents were brutally murdered in a home invasion. The perpetrators were actually lead by a former U.S. special forces operator. There were half a dozen people involved in the home invasion and one of them had the responsibility for dismantling the security system.
> 
> Now, this made NATIONAL headline news for weeks. But asshats like brainless here remain ignorant of reality 24x7 while pretending like they are "experts" on the subject.
> 
> Second, and much more importantly, here is how a security system works (something brainless here knows nothing about). You alarm is "tripped" - the police do NOT receive that notification. The company you contract with does (Brinks, ADT, etc.). That company immediately tries to call your house. If unable to reach you, they try the next number on your list (most likely your cell). After no response, they go to the third number on your list. Now, lets say that third number is a family member in your area. By this time, at least 5 minutes have gone by (more than enough time for someone to kill you). Your family member answers, and is told by the company that there is an alarm at your house. The family member says "let me see if I can get ahold of them". When they can't, they call the company back and tell them to send police. Depending on the city, the average response time for police is anywhere from 5 minutes to 12 minutes (and even worse in some cases). So by now, we're between 15 - 30 minutes. More than enough time for an intruder to kill you, make a sandwich, eat it, and then leave without being caught.
> 
> And this is brainless here idea of "much more effective" compared to a gun?
> 
> Keep talking stupid! All you're doing is illustrating your ignorance for the world. Love when people like you _pretend_ to be "experts" on things you know *nothing* about.
Click to expand...


Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system?  Really?  Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.  So the point of your example was?  How many times has such things happened?   I'm guessing once, but that doesn't stop your paranoia does it?

Wow you sure are a security expert.  Well I hate to break this to you but most people would call 911 right away when the alarm goes off with a break in.  Nice of you to write all that nonsense though Mr Security.  haha

Sorry but I'd take the security system over the gun.  Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point.  And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.
> 
> All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.
> 
> In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he almost shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second!!! You just gave a scenario in which you said (and I quote) "all guns disappear" and you want to talk to *me* about "the real world"?!?
> 
> Second, you continue to illustrate your extraordinary ignorance on every topic. There were *no* armed CCW licensed individuals on site when the shooting occurred. The first to arrive was a man named Joseph Zamudio - who did so after Loughner had been tackled to the ground and subdued.
> 
> You are such a vintage liberal. You're completely and totally ignorant of the facts. You read left-wing propaganda drivel and drink the shit down as "reality" without _any_ research. In short, you're ignorant, lazy, and a liar. In other words, the perfect Dumbocrat.
> 
> Had someone been armed that day, Loughner wouldn't have barely been able to get off 3 shots before being taken down.
Click to expand...


Lets hear some examples of the shooter being taken down as you claim it would happen.  Certainly there must be many examples.  I'm sure a shooting range is very safe right?  Oh wait, Chris Kyle was at a range wasn't he?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter. * In fact he almost shot the wrong person*.  Now that's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does *not*).
> 
> His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "*almost*" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander *almost* shot the wrong person....
> 
> Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider *almost* doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...
Click to expand...


I haven't said to ban guns.  I'm merely pointing to an example where your imaginary hero with a gun taking down the shooter didn't happen.


----------



## The Irish Ram

We have carried guns in this country since this was a country and have never seen anything like this.   The difference is now our children spend hours and hours with play stations killing and killing some more, and grand theft auto, and more carnage.  
And then we are surprised when they act out what they have been doing in their bedrooms day after day by taking what they have learned to our schools, theaters and anywhere else they want.

We don't have a gun problem in the United States, we have a violence problem.


----------



## OKTexas

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly your very slow.  The scenario was all guns disappear.  In that case there is no Sandy Hook.  That sounds kinda nice doesn't it?   And even if all guns aren't gone your chance of dying without a gun isn't very high.  I've been doing it my whole life actually.  And if you look at statistics your actually more likely to be shot if you have a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.
> 
> All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.
> 
> In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he *almost* shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.
Click to expand...


Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.


----------



## Brain357

OKTexas said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you're (that's right junior, it's apostrophe "r" "e" - your is for posession - so obviously you're the one who is very slow) another ignorant asshole who pretends to be knowledgable on a subject (security) you know *nothing* about.
> 
> All guns cannot "disappear" - so as usual, your "scenario" is a typical libtard utopian fantasy.
> 
> In the real world, there is no Sandy Hook if teachers, administrators, and/or security on site is armed. Adam Lanza doesn't even bother going there. And in the extreme, absurd, libtard "scenario" that he does, he dies and every child there is unharmed.
> 
> Want to try again junior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he *almost* shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.
Click to expand...


It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person.  The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos.  This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.


----------



## OKTexas

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he *almost* shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person.  The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos.  This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.
Click to expand...


1 guy out of position in a crowd, kind of like the cops just a few blocks away from the Aurora theater, help isn't always exactly where it is needed. The fact the you felt compelled to restate the obvious just shows a lack of knowledge on your part.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter.  In fact he *almost* shot the wrong person.  Now that's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person.  The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos.  This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.
Click to expand...

Assault weapons account for maybe 20 murders a year. They are seldom used in other crime either. There is no compelling reason to limit supposed assault weapons, large capacity magazines or rifles at all.

Background checks are already mandatory and that INCLUDES at gun shows. There is no reason to believe forcing private citizens to run background checks would in any way diminish homicides or crime with firearms.

The mentally incompetent are already forbidden by law from owning or possessing firearms of any kind. The problem is local authorities are not doing due diligence on mentally unstable people and probably because the left whines and threatens when they do. 

Criminals are already barred by law from owning or possessing firearms.

NOTHING proposed by this administration or Congress would have had any effect on violence with firearms or murders. It would not have stopped a single one of the school shootings or mass shootings. None of the proposed changes would have slowed down or prevented the shootings.

Getting the point yet?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the real world.  In the real world there was a concealed carry guy there when Giffords and others were shot.  Yet he didn't stop the shooter. * In fact he almost shot the wrong person*.  Now that's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks, how great is this? Vintage Dumbocrat stupidity here. Lets pretend for a moment like his statement even remotely resembles reality (which anyone familiar with the Loughner situation will immediately recognize it does *not*).
> 
> His best argument is that a Good Samaritan "*almost*" shot the wrong person. You get that? He didn't do it. But we should ban guns because in brainless's mind here, the bystander *almost* shot the wrong person....
> 
> Now of course, that never happened anyway. But how hilarious is it that brainless is so desperate to make an argument, we now need to consider *almost* doing something as a crime, an issue, or a reason to take action...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't said to ban guns.  I'm merely pointing to an example where your imaginary hero with a gun taking down the shooter didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Correct. 

One carries a concealed firearm for self-defense pursuant to the Second Amendment, not to act as law enforcement or a hero in the event of a gun violence event such as Tucson. 

The vast majority of citizens who carry a concealed firearm lack both the training and experience to neutralize a criminal in those types of situations. 

Moreover, the right to self-defense and the right to carry a concealed firearm do  not require justification to exercise, that a citizen carrying a concealed firearm night have stopped a gun violence incident or not is completely irrelevant, having nothing to do with those respective rights.


----------



## Politico

And still they don't have a plan.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person.  The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos.  This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Assault weapons account for maybe 20 murders a year. They are seldom used in other crime either. There is no compelling reason to limit supposed assault weapons, large capacity magazines or rifles at all.
> 
> Background checks are already mandatory and that INCLUDES at gun shows. There is no reason to believe forcing private citizens to run background checks would in any way diminish homicides or crime with firearms.
> 
> The mentally incompetent are already forbidden by law from owning or possessing firearms of any kind. The problem is local authorities are not doing due diligence on mentally unstable people and probably because the left whines and threatens when they do.
> 
> Criminals are already barred by law from owning or possessing firearms.
> 
> NOTHING proposed by this administration or Congress would have had any effect on violence with firearms or murders. It would not have stopped a single one of the school shootings or mass shootings. None of the proposed changes would have slowed down or prevented the shootings.
> 
> Getting the point yet?
Click to expand...


Get the point?  Well it sounds like your putting together a good argument for no guns.  I do disagree with much of what your saying however.

Limits on magazine capacity would for sure save some lives.  The more often someone has to reload the more chances for a life saved.  For example the Giffords shooter was stopped when he reloaded.  There are of course many other examples also.

I think every gun sale should have a background check.  What statistics are you using to say that they wouldn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Right now Bob can sell a gun to the guy down the street that he barely knows with no background check.  That's a pretty big hole.

Our main problem is obviously irresponsible gun owners.  I mean 232,000 guns stolen each year?  That should be embarrassing for you.  How can you guys run around saying people need guns to defend themselves and their stuff when you can't even keep criminals from stealing your guns?


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system?  Really?  Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.



Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)



Brain357 said:


> So the point of your example was?



The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms. 



Brain357 said:


> How many times has such things happened?   I'm guessing once, but that doesn't stop your paranoia does it?



Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are _guessing_. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is _once_ and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.

Second, home invasions happen _every_ day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.



Brain357 said:


> Wow you sure are a security expert.



To answer your question - yes - I actually _am_ a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am _literally_ a security _expert_. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior? 



Brain357 said:


> Well I hate to break this to you but most people would call 911 right away when the alarm goes off with a break in.



Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point? 



Brain357 said:


> Sorry but I'd take the security system over the gun.



Well of course _you_ would - you're a fuck'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "*much* *more* effective"?

You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.



Brain357 said:


> Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point.  And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.



You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system?  Really?  Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the point of your example was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are _guessing_. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is _once_ and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.
> 
> Second, home invasions happen _every_ day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question - yes - I actually _am_ a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am _literally_ a security _expert_. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I'd take the security system over the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course _you_ would - you're a fuck'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "*much* *more* effective"?
> 
> You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point.  And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.
Click to expand...


Seriously, are you trying to be funny?  Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff.  Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911?  Expert?  Really?  

How do you call 911 with a gun to your head?  Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone.  Pretty easy really.  I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head?  Oh security expert you are for sure.  Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning.  Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone?  Really?  haha  Please explain that one to me mr expert.  

With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong.  In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny.  Security expert.  haha


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system?  Really?  Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)
> 
> 
> The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.
> 
> Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are _guessing_. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is _once_ and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.
> 
> Second, home invasions happen _every_ day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.
> 
> 
> To answer your question - yes - I actually _am_ a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am _literally_ a security _expert_. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?
> 
> 
> Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?
> 
> Well of course _you_ would - you're a fuck'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "*much* *more* effective"?
> 
> You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point.  And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, are you trying to be funny?  Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff.  Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911?  Expert?  Really?
> 
> How do you call 911 with a gun to your head?  Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone.  Pretty easy really.  I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head?  Oh security expert you are for sure.  Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning.  Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone?  Really?  haha  Please explain that one to me mr expert.
> 
> With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong.  In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny.  Security expert.  haha
Click to expand...


_Someone_ is starting to realize their ignorance has been exposed and is resulting to childish responses now.... 

You've yet to answer any questions. Gee, I wonder why that is (maybe brainless here finally realizes he _wrong_).

If the point of the alarm system is to bring people with guns, doesn't that prove that guns are more effective than alarm systems? And thus, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the 12-20 minute response time and just have the gun yourself? 

If alarms are more effective, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't law enforcement carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? 

Finally, you falsely and ignorantly stated that a CCW bystander "almost" shot the wrong person. I provided the facts which indicate that did NOT happen and that there was no CCW bystander there when the shots were fired (he came running when he heard the shots and arrived after Loughner was tackled). Yet you haven't admitted you're a liar spreading ignorant Dumbocrat propaganda. Are you going to admit you were wrong?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)
> 
> 
> The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.
> 
> Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are _guessing_. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is _once_ and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.
> 
> Second, home invasions happen _every_ day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.
> 
> 
> To answer your question - yes - I actually _am_ a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am _literally_ a security _expert_. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?
> 
> 
> Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?
> 
> Well of course _you_ would - you're a fuck'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "*much* *more* effective"?
> 
> You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, are you trying to be funny?  Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff.  Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911?  Expert?  Really?
> 
> How do you call 911 with a gun to your head?  Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone.  Pretty easy really.  I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head?  Oh security expert you are for sure.  Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning.  Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone?  Really?  haha  Please explain that one to me mr expert.
> 
> With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong.  In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny.  Security expert.  haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Someone_ is starting to realize their ignorance has been exposed and is resulting to childish responses now....
> 
> You've yet to answer any questions. Gee, I wonder why that is (maybe brainless here finally realizes he _wrong_).
> 
> If the point of the alarm system is to bring people with guns, doesn't that prove that guns are more effective than alarm systems? And thus, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the 12-20 minute response time and just have the gun yourself?
> 
> If alarms are more effective, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't law enforcement carry alarms instead of guns? Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns?
> 
> Finally, you falsely and ignorantly stated that a CCW bystander "almost" shot the wrong person. I provided the facts which indicate that did NOT happen and that there was no CCW bystander there when the shots were fired (he came running when he heard the shots and arrived after Loughner was tackled). Yet you haven't admitted you're a liar spreading ignorant Dumbocrat propaganda. Are you going to admit you were wrong?
Click to expand...


I see you failed to answer my questions.  Lets go one at a time then.  How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone.  Please explain that one.  You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.

Your questions are so dumb I didn't think they really needed to be answered.  The point of the alarm system is to alert you to someone breaking in and protect you and your stuff.  Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you.  Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?  Are you some sort of criminal?  So the alarm goes off and the criminal gets the heck out.  In your gun example the gun owner is not alerted and wakes up with his gun stolen or in your example dead.

Ok so your a security expert and your seriously asking me why police don't carry alarms?  A security expert who clearly doesn't even understand what alarms are for.   

You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting.  Provide some links or something.  You've not provided anything actually.  I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.


----------



## RKMBrown

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and atom bombs. The fact is the guy didn't shoot the wrong person and another fact is police are guilty more often than civilians when it comes to shooting the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you guys are focusing on the almost shot the wrong person.  The main point was that he didn't stop the shooter and that will more than likely be the case in these situations with all the chaos.  This gentleman was in fact a responsible gun owner when he didn't shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Assault weapons account for maybe 20 murders a year. They are seldom used in other crime either. There is no compelling reason to limit supposed assault weapons, large capacity magazines or rifles at all.
> 
> Background checks are already mandatory and that INCLUDES at gun shows. There is no reason to believe forcing private citizens to run background checks would in any way diminish homicides or crime with firearms.
> 
> The mentally incompetent are already forbidden by law from owning or possessing firearms of any kind. The problem is local authorities are not doing due diligence on mentally unstable people and probably because the left whines and threatens when they do.
> 
> Criminals are already barred by law from owning or possessing firearms.
> 
> NOTHING proposed by this administration or Congress would have had any effect on violence with firearms or murders. It would not have stopped a single one of the school shootings or mass shootings. None of the proposed changes would have slowed down or prevented the shootings.
> 
> Getting the point yet?
Click to expand...


It's not about stopping shootings, it's about stopping people from being able to defend themselves and family from the shootings.  Why?  Because then we are more dependent on government services... The reason liberals are they way they are is they have a deep seated desire to shed all personal responsibility for self preservation to some higher power.  Evidently, they want to crawl back into the womb.  In this case, they believe life will be better if govco is their mommy/daddy.  Please take care of me, I don't know what to do... cry....


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your expecting a team of assassins to come take you out who can dismantle the security system?  Really?  Sorry but if that group is coming after you it wouldn't really matter what you had, your dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)
> 
> 
> 
> The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are _guessing_. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is _once_ and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.
> 
> Second, home invasions happen _every_ day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question - yes - I actually _am_ a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am _literally_ a security _expert_. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course _you_ would - you're a fuck'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "*much* *more* effective"?
> 
> You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't going to stick around after they hear the alarm, chance of getting caught too high at that point.  And since 232,000 guns are stolen a year that pretty much proves that just having a gun isn't so good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, are you trying to be funny?  Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff.  Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911?  Expert?  Really?
> 
> How do you call 911 with a gun to your head?  Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone.  Pretty easy really.  I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head?  Oh security expert you are for sure.  Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning.  Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone?  Really?  haha  Please explain that one to me mr expert.
> 
> With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong.  In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny.  Security expert.  haha
Click to expand...


Having read this thread and seen how increasingly false and ridiculous your argument has become, my only advice to you is that you should really stop posting.  You hang  your argument against armed people stopping active shootings is that an armed person didn't stop the Giffords shooting, but the fact is that the armed citizen was not on the scene at the time of the shooting.  He responded to the shots (which he certainly didn't have to do, as he was not in immediate danger), evaluated the scene when he arrived and took appropriate actions (which was nothing as the event was over).  You want to talk about alarms as if an alarm going off actually stops a crime, but we all know that just because an alarm goes off does not mean the bad actors retreat.  You behave as if calling 911 stops a crime when we know be listening to some released 911 tapes that having the police on the line does not protect you.  It merely tells the criminal to rob and kill you faster now because the police may get there in a few minutes.

The fact is that you have no argument, and all you do is respond with spurious comments when that fact is revealed.

Oh, and here's a link for you.  http://ohioccw.org/200805303991/nevada-ccw-holder-stops-mass-shooting.html


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So if I have a Barrett M468 or a Saiga 12, it "doesn't matter"? I know a host of dead criminals would disagree with you. But then again, we've already established that you don't know what you're talking about (but that certainly doesn't stop you from talking)
> 
> 
> 
> The point was to illustrate what an idiot you are (mission accomplished) and to illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about (mission accomplished). How - without any knowledge of what you are talking about - you declare "an alarm works better". Tell me junior, if "an alarm works better" than a gun, why do law enforcement carry guns? Why don't they carry alarms.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow - a rare moment of honesty! You are _guessing_. And you've been guessing on this entire thread. First of all, all it takes is _once_ and your dead. You don't get a second chance once your dead junior. There are no mulligans. So you better take your security seriously.
> 
> Second, home invasions happen _every_ day all over this nation. Turn on the news once in a while. Pick up a newspaper once in a while. Stop being such a subservient little lap dog to your liberal masters who are feeding you their absurd propaganda while laughing at what a useful idiot you are.
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your question - yes - I actually _am_ a security expert. I actually hold special certifications in the field of security. I give presentations on security in front of large audiences. I train people on security. And I've been quoted in various publications over and over regarding security. I am _literally_ a security _expert_. Oops! Looks like your snark back-fired, eh junior?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So then, nobody with an alarm has ever been killed, junior? Everybody with an alarm lives in a utopian world of safety and security? Wait - tell me again what happened to Byrd and Melanie Billings? And tell me how you dial 911 when you're being held at gun point?
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course _you_ would - you're a fuck'n moron. You don't know what you're talking about (as I've illustrated already). Hey, how come the Secret Service doesn't carry an alarm instead of guns? You know, since you claim alarms are (and I quote) "*much* *more* effective"?
> 
> You're too stupid to even realize that the point of an alarm is to alert the people with guns to come help you (which kind of proves that guns are more effective junior). So why no eliminate the middle man - not to mention the 20 minute response time that could end with your death - and have the gun yourself? Answer: any normal, rational person would. Who wouldn't? The weak-minded, brainwashed Dumbocrat who has an irrational fear about an inanimate object and has been conditioned to fear them.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right - they are going to kill you quickly, take what they can quickly, and get out of there. But do you know what causes a criminal to "not stick around" even more quickly (and also doesn't end with your death)? The sound of 12-gauge buck flying at them. That causes them to shit themselves and run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, are you trying to be funny?  Because I couldn't write this funny of stuff.  Your a security expert but you don't know that the person would call 911?  Expert?  Really?
> 
> How do you call 911 with a gun to your head?  Well lets see, the alarm goes off and you reach for your phone.  Pretty easy really.  I guess your suggesting the the alarm goes off and instantly there is a gun to your head?  Oh security expert you are for sure.  Now that might be the case for the gun owner with no alarm since they then have no warning.  Are you saying a gun owner with no alarm can grab his gun faster than somebody with an alarm can grab a phone?  Really?  haha  Please explain that one to me mr expert.
> 
> With 232,000 guns stolen each year I'd say I'm right and your wrong.  In fact most of what your saying is ridiculously funny.  Security expert.  haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having read this thread and seen how increasingly false and ridiculous your argument has become, my only advice to you is that you should really stop posting.  You hang  your argument against armed people stopping active shootings is that an armed person didn't stop the Giffords shooting, but the fact is that the armed citizen was not on the scene at the time of the shooting.  He responded to the shots (which he certainly didn't have to do, as he was not in immediate danger), evaluated the scene when he arrived and took appropriate actions (which was nothing as the event was over).  You want to talk about alarms as if an alarm going off actually stops a crime, but we all know that just because an alarm goes off does not mean the bad actors retreat.  You behave as if calling 911 stops a crime when we know be listening to some released 911 tapes that having the police on the line does not protect you.  It merely tells the criminal to rob and kill you faster now because the police may get there in a few minutes.
> 
> The fact is that you have no argument, and all you do is respond with spurious comments when that fact is revealed.
> 
> Oh, and here's a link for you.  Nevada CCW Holder Stops Mass Shooting | Concealed Carry | News
Click to expand...


Oh you found an example.  Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right?  Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime.  This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier.  I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year.  I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading.  Good example for why magazine limits are important.  I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> Oh you found an example.  Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right?  Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime.  This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier.  I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year.  I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading.  Good example for why magazine limits are important.  I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?



Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again. 

But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you found an example.  Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right?  Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime.  This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier.  I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year.  I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading.  Good example for why magazine limits are important.  I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.
> 
> But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com
> 
> As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.
Click to expand...


You link doesn't work.

So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that?  Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?

So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner.  Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News

Something tells me I can come up with more of these....


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you found an example.  Kinda old at 2008, but I'm sure there are more right?  Reading several sources this sounds like gang crime.  This guy was retaliating for a drive by which happened earlier.  I wonder if his gun was one of those 232,000 stolen each year.  I do like the part about he was shot when he was reloading.  Good example for why magazine limits are important.  I guess ccw people should be for limits too eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.
> 
> But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com
> 
> As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You link doesn't work.
> 
> So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that?  Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?
> 
> So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner.  Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
> Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News
> 
> Something tells me I can come up with more of these....
Click to expand...


Didn't realize you couldn't use Google.  Sorry, try this:

Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com

I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything,  but I'm not surprised you didn't get it.  You seem to be a very limited thinker.

And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people.  That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.  

And, since you want more:  The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I was not encouraging you to exhibit your stupidity by posting again.
> 
> But, you didn't say you wanted a more contemporary source, you wanted one example. So, here's another, from 2012. Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com
> 
> As far as your preoccupation with magazines, changing magazines didn't stop the mass shootings done by George Hennard, did it? He changed magazines multiple times and ended up shooting 50 people and killing 23 of them. Your argument fails and you should try to conserve what little respect you have left by stopping your posts for a while. Honestly, it's kind of sad to watch you flail about so impotently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You link doesn't work.
> 
> So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that?  Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?
> 
> So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner.  Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
> Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News
> 
> Something tells me I can come up with more of these....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't realize you couldn't use Google.  Sorry, try this:
> 
> Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com
> 
> I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything,  but I'm not surprised you didn't get it.  You seem to be a very limited thinker.
> 
> And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people.  That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.
> 
> And, since you want more:  The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"
Click to expand...


That's a good example.  She stopped him, but he did kill 5 people first.  I wonder what kind of ridiculously overpowered and hi capacity guns he used?  Seems like CO has a lot of shootings, and they seem to have a lot of guns there....

Actually your article mentions he was shot after having to reload.  That would have helped your hero.  Again you don't want to help the hero?  Better the bad guy can shoot as much as he wants without reloading eh?  Interesting.

On the subject of churches here's one:
Teen Charged in North Carolina Church Shooting - ABC News
How the heck does a 17 year old get a gun?  Now either he had irresponsible gun owner parents or it must be one of the 232,000 stolen from irresponsible gun owners.


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You link doesn't work.
> 
> So you give a great example of why a magazine limit would help your concealed carry hero and you say that?  Shouldn't we do what we can to help the hero and stop the mass shooter?
> 
> So you've given an example of a gun taking out the shooter who probably got his gun from an irresponsible gun owner.  Now here is an example of the gun owner killing a guy over texting in a movie theater?
> Texting Allegedly Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain - ABC News
> 
> Something tells me I can come up with more of these....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't realize you couldn't use Google.  Sorry, try this:
> 
> Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com
> 
> I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything,  but I'm not surprised you didn't get it.  You seem to be a very limited thinker.
> 
> And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people.  That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.
> 
> And, since you want more:  The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good example.  She stopped him, but he did kill 5 people first.  I wonder what kind of ridiculously overpowered and hi capacity guns he used?  Seems like CO has a lot of shootings, and they seem to have a lot of guns there....
> 
> Actually your article mentions he was shot after having to reload.  That would have helped your hero.  Again you don't want to help the hero?  Better the bad guy can shoot as much as he wants without reloading eh?  Interesting.
> 
> On the subject of churches here's one:
> Teen Charged in North Carolina Church Shooting - ABC News
> How the heck does a 17 year old get a gun?  Now either he had irresponsible gun owner parents or it must be one of the 232,000 stolen from irresponsible gun owners.
Click to expand...


Obviously you're starting to understand that the laws you depended on don't save lives as they can't even keep a 17 year old from obtaining a firearm

Now, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jk4D0THoU4]Armed Good Samaritan Praised for, Saving Policeman's Life in Shooting Standoff - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg]Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCmefD7Lio]Concealed carry kills robber at Dollar store - YouTube[/ame]

Thought I'd put up videos because I'm sure that reading is tiring you out.  Besides, you invent things as you read, like the first story was in retaliation for a drive by when it said plainly it was a family dispute and miss out on facts as you didn't understand the shooter at the church had a shotgun.

Honestly, you'd be much better served by just abandoning the thread and not exposing yourself to further ridicule.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> I see you failed to answer my questions.  Lets go one at a time then.  How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone.  Please explain that one.  You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.



Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.

First of all, I have *never* said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is fuck'n useless.

Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).

Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?



Brain357 said:


> *Your questions are so dumb I didn't think they really needed to be answered*.



Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been _owned_. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.



Brain357 said:


> The point of the alarm system is to alert you to someone breaking in and protect you and your stuff.



Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a fuck about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.



Brain357 said:


> Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you.  Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?  Are you some sort of criminal?  So the alarm goes off and the criminal gets the heck out.  In your gun example the gun owner is not alerted and wakes up with his gun stolen or in your example dead.



My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is fucking comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.



Brain357 said:


> Ok so your a security expert and your seriously asking me why police don't carry alarms?  A security expert who clearly doesn't even understand what alarms are for.



So what _is_ an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff" 

You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"... 



Brain357 said:


> You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting.  Provide some links or something.  You've not provided anything actually.  I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.



First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so fuck'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't realize you couldn't use Google.  Sorry, try this:
> 
> Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church - Guns.com
> 
> I gave you a great example of how your preoccupation with a limit on magazines didn't stop anything,  but I'm not surprised you didn't get it.  You seem to be a very limited thinker.
> 
> And then you give us a story where one side has been publicized while the other side (the retired policeman felt he was being attacked) has not been explored as if it is an indictment of all people.  That's an example of the ridiculousness of your argument that I was referring to earlier.
> 
> And, since you want more:  The Officious Intermeddler: Armed Civilian Saves "over 100 lives"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good example.  She stopped him, but he did kill 5 people first.  I wonder what kind of ridiculously overpowered and hi capacity guns he used?  Seems like CO has a lot of shootings, and they seem to have a lot of guns there....
> 
> Actually your article mentions he was shot after having to reload.  That would have helped your hero.  Again you don't want to help the hero?  Better the bad guy can shoot as much as he wants without reloading eh?  Interesting.
> 
> On the subject of churches here's one:
> Teen Charged in North Carolina Church Shooting - ABC News
> How the heck does a 17 year old get a gun?  Now either he had irresponsible gun owner parents or it must be one of the 232,000 stolen from irresponsible gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you're starting to understand that the laws you depended on don't save lives as they can't even keep a 17 year old from obtaining a firearm
> 
> Now, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jk4D0THoU4]Armed Good Samaritan Praised for, Saving Policeman's Life in Shooting Standoff - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg]Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCmefD7Lio]Concealed carry kills robber at Dollar store - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Thought I'd put up videos because I'm sure that reading is tiring you out.  Besides, you invent things as you read, like the first story was in retaliation for a drive by when it said plainly it was a family dispute and miss out on facts as you didn't understand the shooter at the church had a shotgun.
> 
> Honestly, you'd be much better served by just abandoning the thread and not exposing yourself to further ridicule.
Click to expand...


Yes it's sad that 232,000 guns are stolen from gun owners each year and get into the hands of 17 year olds.

Now your first video.  Nice that guy was there to shoot him I guess.  But the bad guy shot and killed two neighbors over dogs?  Was this guy one of those responsible gun owners?  

Now the rapist he obviously deserved what he got.  Now of course if the woman had a good security system she wouldn't have been raped in the first place...

Ok now the last one he shot and killed a kid with a fake gun?  That's your example?  Sorry but I don't see how anyone was in danger from the toy guns...


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you.  Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?



Don't you love how brainless here literally makes stuff up as he goes? He has not data, no links, no facts, has never worked in law enforcement, or even owned a gun, yet he ignorantly declares "most criminals are trying to steal your stuff". Oh really? And you're basis for that outrageous claim is.......????

First of all, millions of criminals have entered a home for one purpose and one purpose only - to rape a woman. They could care less about your "stuff". So how is that 15-30 minute response time going to work out while you're being raped, junior? While the alarm company tries to reach you on your various numbers to alert you to the fact that they have an alarm showing?

Second, there are endless murders in houses with alarm systems. How do you explain that, _stupid_? I know a case where the son of the family turned the alarm system off so that the person they hired to do the job could kill his parents while he was at a public place with his girlfriend so that he had an alibi. Oops! Another example of how being armed provides exponentially more security over an alarm system. Dumb ass.

And you still haven't answered the biggest question - since an alarm system is designed to alert the people with guns that you need help, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the response time, and just have a gun yourself?


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.



Are you? Are you really junior? Well, here you go.... And this is a 71-year old man who not only "saved the day" but would not have been able to defend anything at his advanced age without a gun. Oh - and this has video! Enjoy (and learn something for once, you ignorant asshole)....

71-Year-Old Man Shoots Would-Be Robbers at Ocala Internet Cafe: Authorities | NBC 6 South Florida

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4]71 year old Man Stops Armed Robbery - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you failed to answer my questions.  Lets go one at a time then.  How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone.  Please explain that one.  You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.
> 
> First of all, I have *never* said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is fuck'n useless.
> 
> Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).
> 
> Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Your questions are so dumb I didn't think they really needed to be answered*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been _owned_. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a fuck about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.
> 
> 
> 
> My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is fucking comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so your a security expert and your seriously asking me why police don't carry alarms?  A security expert who clearly doesn't even understand what alarms are for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what _is_ an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"
> 
> You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting.  Provide some links or something.  You've not provided anything actually.  I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so fuck'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?
Click to expand...


Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself.  So congrats on saying something smart.    I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.  

But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system.  We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun.  Pay attention.  If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.

And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run.  They have this thing about not wanting to get caught.  You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal?  Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.

So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year?  I've not heard any explanation on that yet.  The owners should have had alarm systems.  Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...

You continue to provide no sort of proof.  You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you.  Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you love how brainless here literally makes stuff up as he goes? He has not data, no links, no facts, has never worked in law enforcement, or even owned a gun, yet he ignorantly declares "most criminals are trying to steal your stuff". Oh really? And you're basis for that outrageous claim is.......????
> 
> First of all, millions of criminals have entered a home for one purpose and one purpose only - to rape a woman. They could care less about your "stuff". So how is that 15-30 minute response time going to work out while you're being raped, junior? While the alarm company tries to reach you on your various numbers to alert you to the fact that they have an alarm showing?
> 
> Second, there are endless murders in houses with alarm systems. How do you explain that, _stupid_? I know a case where the son of the family turned the alarm system off so that the person they hired to do the job could kill his parents while he was at a public place with his girlfriend so that he had an alibi. Oops! Another example of how being armed provides exponentially more security over an alarm system. Dumb ass.
> 
> And you still haven't answered the biggest question - since an alarm system is designed to alert the people with guns that you need help, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the response time, and just have a gun yourself?
Click to expand...


You continue to bring me great joys of laughter.  After stating I don't provide links or facts(which I actually have).  You provide a rant without any.  

Sorry but if an alarm goes off the guy doesn't stick around to rape someone.  And since the woman will call 911 when the alarm goes off help will arrive much faster than that, more like 4 minutes.  Making it highly likely the guy would get caught, hence why he gets the heck out when he hears an alarm.

Without the alarm a gun doesn't do you that much good.  I have the 232,000 guns stolen each year backing me up, what you got?


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.



Don't let the facts smack you in your stupid face, junior....

December 17, 1991
 Aniston, AL

    Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoneys restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.

     Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn Terry, *legally armed with a .45 semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robbers chest and abdomen, killing him instantly*.

    The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on Terry and grazed him. Terry returned fire, *hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically*.

*The robbery attempt was over. The Shoneys customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt*.


The Armed CitizenArmed Citizen at Shoney?s Prevents Mass Shooting | armed citizen


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you.  Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you love how brainless here literally makes stuff up as he goes? He has not data, no links, no facts, has never worked in law enforcement, or even owned a gun, yet he ignorantly declares "most criminals are trying to steal your stuff". Oh really? And you're basis for that outrageous claim is.......????
> 
> First of all, millions of criminals have entered a home for one purpose and one purpose only - to rape a woman. They could care less about your "stuff". So how is that 15-30 minute response time going to work out while you're being raped, junior? While the alarm company tries to reach you on your various numbers to alert you to the fact that they have an alarm showing?
> 
> Second, there are endless murders in houses with alarm systems. How do you explain that, _stupid_? I know a case where the son of the family turned the alarm system off so that the person they hired to do the job could kill his parents while he was at a public place with his girlfriend so that he had an alibi. Oops! Another example of how being armed provides exponentially more security over an alarm system. Dumb ass.
> 
> And you still haven't answered the biggest question - since an alarm system is designed to alert the people with guns that you need help, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the response time, and just have a gun yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to bring me great joys of laughter.  After stating I don't provide links or facts(which I actually have).  You provide a rant without any.
> 
> Sorry but if an alarm goes off the guy doesn't stick around to rape someone.  And since the woman will call 911 when the alarm goes off help will arrive much faster than that, more like 4 minutes.  Making it highly likely the guy would get caught, hence why he gets the heck out when he hears an alarm.
> 
> Without the alarm a gun doesn't do you that much good.  I have the 232,000 guns stolen each year backing me up, what you got?
Click to expand...


You've yet to add one single link to any response of my posts. I've answered your posts with link after link after link (and laughing the entire time while doing so).

So come on junior - where is your link backing up your false, irrational, and just plain bizarre claim that "most criminals just want to steal your stuff"


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> Yes it's sad that 232,000 guns are stolen from gun owners each year and get into the hands of 17 year olds.
> 
> Now your first video.  Nice that guy was there to shoot him I guess.  But the bad guy shot and killed two neighbors over dogs?  Was this guy one of those responsible gun owners?
> 
> Now the rapist he obviously deserved what he got.  Now of course if the woman had a good security system she wouldn't have been raped in the first place...
> 
> Ok now the last one he shot and killed a kid with a fake gun?  That's your example?  Sorry but I don't see how anyone was in danger from the toy guns...



It's also sad that 1,192,809 motor vehicles were stolen last year.  Obviously, crime is a real problem!  So, rather than waste time whining about stolen items, why not come up with an effective plan to control criminals?

So, to your question about the first video, I'd say the guy was a criminal because he was committing a crime.  The police showed up and needed assistance and a responsible gun owner helped him.

Prove that a rapist would stop his criminal activity if the woman had an alarm.  Now, he may have moved to another target, but he'd continue his criminal activity, so an alarm wouldn't really solve the problem would it?

And, you are mischaracterizing the air soft gun as a toy.  Obviously, it was real enough for the criminals to use to try to rob the store.  I guess, though,  you have to do that since you really don't have a point.

I know you feel you're in so deep that you have to keep posting, but seriously, you should stop because you're making a fool of yourself!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYSau64LOc]Internet Cafe Shooting. Concealed Carry Citizen Prevails. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xlvtOqDU]Houston Self Defense Shooting CCW - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnL05eLaTjQ]people saved by guns - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you failed to answer my questions.  Lets go one at a time then.  How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone.  Please explain that one.  You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.
> 
> First of all, I have *never* said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is fuck'n useless.
> 
> Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).
> 
> Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been _owned_. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a fuck about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.
> 
> 
> 
> My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is fucking comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> So what _is_ an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"
> 
> You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting.  Provide some links or something.  You've not provided anything actually.  I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so fuck'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself.  So congrats on saying something smart.    I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.
> 
> But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system.  We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun.  Pay attention.  If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.
> 
> And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run.  They have this thing about not wanting to get caught.  You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal?  Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.
> 
> So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year?  I've not heard any explanation on that yet.  The owners should have had alarm systems.  Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...
> 
> You continue to provide no sort of proof.  You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....
Click to expand...


You *still* haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.
> 
> First of all, I have *never* said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is fuck'n useless.
> 
> Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).
> 
> Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been _owned_. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a fuck about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.
> 
> 
> 
> My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is fucking comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> So what _is_ an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"
> 
> You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so fuck'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself.  So congrats on saying something smart.    I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.
> 
> But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system.  We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun.  Pay attention.  If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.
> 
> And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run.  They have this thing about not wanting to get caught.  You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal?  Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.
> 
> So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year?  I've not heard any explanation on that yet.  The owners should have had alarm systems.  Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...
> 
> You continue to provide no sort of proof.  You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You *still* haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
Click to expand...


If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, what good is a gun when your not home?  Ouch, point security system.


----------



## P@triot

*John Lott and John Whitley find that the longer a right-to-carry law is in effect, the greater the drop in crime.

*The third edition of John Lotts More Guns, Less Crime found that the states which issued the most permits had the biggest drops in violent crime rates. Lott also found: By any measure, concealed-handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding.

*Economists Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman found that right-to-carry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.

*Carl Moody, chair of the economics department at the College of William and Mary at the time of the study, said his findings confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and [David] Mustard study.

*In another paper that studies county crime rates from 1977 until 2000, coauthored by Moody and attorney and sociologist Thomas Marvell, the authors write that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

*Economists Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok studied county crime rates from 1977 to 2000 and concluded that shall-issue laws cause a large and significant drop in the murder trend rate and that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. Control. Threshold Editions. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself.  So congrats on saying something smart.    I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.
> 
> But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system.  We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun.  Pay attention.  If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.
> 
> And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run.  They have this thing about not wanting to get caught.  You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal?  Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.
> 
> So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year?  I've not heard any explanation on that yet.  The owners should have had alarm systems.  Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...
> 
> You continue to provide no sort of proof.  You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You *still* haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, *what good is a gun when your not home*?  Ouch, point security system.
Click to expand...


Exactly, _stupid_! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.

Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....


----------



## P@triot

They are getting their asses handed to them in this debate...

Gallup has been asking Americans since 1959: Do you think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

1959: 60 percent
1965: 49 percent
1975: 41 percent
1988: 37 percent
1999: 34 percent
2006: 32 percent
2009: 28 percent
2012: 24 percent

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. Control. Threshold Editions. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You *still* haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, *what good is a gun when your not home*?  Ouch, point security system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, _stupid_! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.
> 
> Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
Click to expand...


Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way.  Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out.  Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, *what good is a gun when your not home*?  Ouch, point security system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, _stupid_! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.
> 
> Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way.  Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out.  Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.
Click to expand...


So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, _stupid_! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.
> 
> Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way.  Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out.  Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?
Click to expand...


Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously.  They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals.  For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions.  Why would I demand they stop carrying guns?  I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, what good is a gun when your not home?  Ouch, point security system.



There is no comparison between his question and yours.  YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant.  Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.  

I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes.  I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.


----------



## hunarcy

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, _stupid_! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.
> 
> Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:
> 
> If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way.  Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out.  Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?
Click to expand...


I can't help myself...check these stories out.

PD: Teenager Tried To Rob Officer At Police Station « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sliqwhAEGW0]12 And 14 Year Olds Try To Rob A Police Station - YouTube[/ame]

I know they're all kids, but OMG!


----------



## Brain357

hunarcy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, what good is a gun when your not home?  Ouch, point security system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no comparison between his question and yours.  YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant.  Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.
> 
> I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes.  I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.
Click to expand...


How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant?  He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals.  Yet 232,000 guns were stolen.  Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals.  But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you?  Have I stepped into the land of the idiots?  You've lost all credibility in my eyes.  Even the obvious eludes you.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way.  Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out.  Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously.  They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals.  For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions.  Why would I demand they stop carrying guns?  I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.
Click to expand...


Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, what good is a gun when your not home?  Ouch, point security system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no comparison between his question and yours.  YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant.  Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.
> 
> I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes.  I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant?  He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals.  Yet 232,000 guns were stolen.  Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals.  But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you?  Have I stepped into the land of the idiots?  You've lost all credibility in my eyes.  Even the obvious eludes you.
Click to expand...


If the firearm was stolen - then obviously the owner was not there. And if they were not there, then clearly they were safe from the perpetrator. 

Would you like to try _again_?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously.  They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals.  For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions.  Why would I demand they stop carrying guns?  I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.
> 
> So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.
Click to expand...


No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no comparison between his question and yours.  YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant.  Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.
> 
> I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes.  I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant?  He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals.  Yet 232,000 guns were stolen.  Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals.  But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you?  Have I stepped into the land of the idiots?  You've lost all credibility in my eyes.  Even the obvious eludes you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the firearm was stolen - then obviously the owner was not there. And if they were not there, then clearly they were safe from the perpetrator.
> 
> Would you like to try _again_?
Click to expand...


So then clearly they need an alarm system and a good safe.  Because now gun owners have put 232,000 guns per year in the hands of criminals, which makes our country much less safe for everyone.  That is irresponsible gun ownership.  This is one of the main reasons we have so many gun crimes, because far too many gun owners are irresponsible.  This is why gun ownership does more damage than good, because of the irresponsible ones.  Now your obviously a gun owner, doesn't it embarrass you that a 232,000 guns are stolen each year?  What are you and other gun owners going to do to keep from getting your guns stolen?  If you guys can't figure out a way to do it on your own, then don't act surprised when the government steps in.


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant?  He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals.  Yet 232,000 guns were stolen.  Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals.  But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you?  Have I stepped into the land of the idiots?  You've lost all credibility in my eyes.  Even the obvious eludes you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the firearm was stolen - then obviously the owner was not there. And if they were not there, then clearly they were safe from the perpetrator.
> 
> Would you like to try _again_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then clearly they need an alarm system and a good safe.  Because now gun owners have put 232,000 guns per year in the hands of criminals, which makes our country much less safe for everyone.  That is irresponsible gun ownership.  This is one of the main reasons we have so many gun crimes, because far too many gun owners are irresponsible.  This is why gun ownership does more damage than good, because of the irresponsible ones.  Now your obviously a gun owner, doesn't it embarrass you that a 232,000 guns are stolen each year?  What are you and other gun owners going to do to keep from getting your guns stolen?  If you guys can't figure out a way to do it on your own, then don't act surprised when the government steps in.
Click to expand...




> So then clearly they need an alarm system and a good safe



Agree that gun owners should have a safe, alarm system not so much



> Because now gun owners have put 232,000 guns per year in the hands of criminals, which makes our country much less safe for everyone.



Um no. Criminals STEAL guns from law abiding citizens which is the crime. If we were successful at killing more of these thugs the crime rate would not only continue to decline, it would so at a faster pace due to presence of a gun in the home




> This is one of the main reasons we have so many gun crimes, because far too many gun owners are irresponsible.  This is why gun ownership does more damage than good, because of the irresponsible



Actually, on any given day, 99.9% of gun owners go about their day lawfully. And again, we need to do a better job of killing the criminals, not impact the lawful citizens. The disease we need to kill here is the criminal, not the gun.



> Now your obviously a gun owner, doesn't it embarrass you that a 232,000 guns are stolen each year?



Embarrassed? um, no... Mad? Yes... We need to do a better job of killing this demographic, the habitual criminal



> What are you and other gun owners going to do to keep from getting your guns stolen?



I want to dwindle the pool of the criminal element. To do so, if we can't keep them locked up for a very long time, then we need to kill them.



> If you guys can't figure out a way to do it on your own, then don't act surprised when the government steps in.



That's why you need to join the NRA. Because, we are not surprised at all. That's why we continue to fight and defeat anti-american bills attacking our civil rights.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously.  They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals.  For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions.  Why would I demand they stop carrying guns?  I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.
> 
> So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
Click to expand...


Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).

You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously.  They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals.  For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions.  Why would I demand they stop carrying guns?  I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.
> 
> So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
Click to expand...


Since the police have no legal obligation to come to me, or my families aid, what good does police having a gun do for me?

-Geaux


----------



## RKMBrown

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.
> 
> So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
Click to expand...

Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.
> 
> So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
Click to expand...


Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## Brain357

RKMBrown said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.
Click to expand...


Ah interesting post of nonsense.


----------



## Brain357

Geaux4it said:


>



232,000 guns stolen each year.  I'm guessing those weren't in gun free zones.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
Click to expand...


And how many of those were stolen from police officers? 

By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many of those were stolen from police officers?
> 
> By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe
Click to expand...


Probably none, but if any a very tiny percent.

Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety?  So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal?  That's good in your mind?  Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right?  I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually I'm not contradicting anything.  We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen.  I am not a police officer, nor are you.  Obviously a gun is better for a police officer.  All your thinking is just wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
Click to expand...


Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 232,000 guns stolen each year.  I'm guessing those weren't in gun free zones.
Click to expand...


I'm guessing the criminals that stole the guns weren't at all concerned.

My GOD man! You have a lot of balls calling yourself "Brain".


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many of those were stolen from police officers?
> 
> By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably none, but if any a very tiny percent.
> 
> Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety?  So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal?  That's good in your mind?  Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right?  I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...


And "your" an idiot.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
Click to expand...


Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many of those were stolen from police officers?
> 
> By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Probably_ none, but if any a very tiny percent.
> 
> Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety?  So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal?  That's good in your mind?  Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right?  I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...


And as usual, the uninformed, juvenile liberal guesses as to the reality. Just so you know, guns are stolen form officers _every_ year in this nation.

As far as the criminal being armed....criminals will _always_ be armed. As ie pointed out many times in this thread already (and you're incapable of responding to): prostitution is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Domestic violence is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Child molestation is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Cocaine is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Murder is outlawed and you haven't stopped that.

The fact that you _think_ you can stop criminals from getting guns just illustrates how ignorant, immature, and idealistic you are...


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home *if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun*.
Click to expand...


Really _stupid_? So the only way a criminal obtains a gun is from theft? They don't purchase them before they get a criminal record? They don't have friends and associates purchase it for them after they get a criminal record? They don't have them passed down from previous generations? They don't obtain them from the black market?

We're literally dealing with a fuck'n child here. I guarantee you brainless here is still in high school. You can tell by his brainless, immature responses. He has no idea about the real world or the criminal underworld.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how many of those were stolen from police officers?
> 
> By the way, if the gun was stolen, it means the owner wasn't there and thus was safe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Probably_ none, but if any a very tiny percent.
> 
> Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety?  So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal?  That's good in your mind?  Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right?  I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as usual, the uninformed, juvenile liberal guesses as to the reality. Just so you know, guns are stolen form officers _every_ year in this nation.
> 
> As far as the criminal being armed....criminals will _always_ be armed. As ie pointed out many times in this thread already (and you're incapable of responding to): prostitution is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Domestic violence is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Child molestation is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Cocaine is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Murder is outlawed and you haven't stopped that.
> 
> The fact that you _think_ you can stop criminals from getting guns just illustrates how ignorant, immature, and idealistic you are...
Click to expand...


Since your so informed then provide us with a number and a link.  Let's see what percent of the 232,000 they are.

Well as long as gun owners provide them with guns they will be armed.  That makes gun owners a major part of the problem.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home *if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really _stupid_? So the only way a criminal obtains a gun is from theft? They don't purchase them before they get a criminal record? They don't have friends and associates purchase it for them after they get a criminal record? They don't have them passed down from previous generations? They don't obtain them from the black market?
> 
> We're literally dealing with a fuck'n child here. I guarantee you brainless here is still in high school. You can tell by his brainless, immature responses. He has no idea about the real world or the criminal underworld.
Click to expand...


Oh there are other ways, but 232,000 is a pretty big number.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Because police are super-cyborg-machines? Police are _people_. Believe me, I should know. If a gun is better for a police officer (who is a person) then a gun is better for a non-police officer (who is a person).
> 
> You continue to illustrate your idiocy and contradict yourself with every post.
> 
> 
> 
> Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah interesting post of nonsense.
Click to expand...


Most of the cops in the US receive very little formal training and as evidenced by the number of innocent bystanders shot by police and the number of rounds they waste when firing at bad guys they obviously receive very little range time either. 

Claiming just because they get paid as cops somehow makes them better then an average citizen is ignorant as hell.


----------



## Geaux4it

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government's his daddy, daddy won't let him play with guns lest he shoot himself in the foot, daddy takes care of him, and he has no worries because daddy is paid by some rich guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah interesting post of nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the cops in the US receive very little formal training and as evidenced by the number of innocent bystanders shot by police and the number of rounds they waste when firing at bad guys they obviously receive very little range time either.
> 
> Claiming just because they get paid as cops somehow makes them better then an average citizen is ignorant as hell.
Click to expand...


The LEO approach when engaged in a firefight is to 'spray and pray'.

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Probably_ none, but if any a very tiny percent.
> 
> Ok so the gun owner just armed a criminal and you think that's adding to safety?  So now the next person he robs has to deal with an armed criminal?  That's good in your mind?  Maybe this criminal now shoots some child, but that's ok because the original owner is safe right?  I hope most gun owners aren't like you, your very sad and pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as usual, the uninformed, juvenile liberal guesses as to the reality. Just so you know, guns are stolen form officers _every_ year in this nation.
> 
> As far as the criminal being armed....criminals will _always_ be armed. As ie pointed out many times in this thread already (and you're incapable of responding to): prostitution is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Domestic violence is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Child molestation is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Cocaine is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Murder is outlawed and you haven't stopped that.
> 
> The fact that you _think_ you can stop criminals from getting guns just illustrates how ignorant, immature, and idealistic you are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since your so informed then provide us with a number and a link.  Let's see what percent of the 232,000 they are.
> 
> Well as long as gun owners provide them with guns they will be armed.  That makes gun owners a major part of the problem.
Click to expand...


Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home

Mass. officer loses gun in courthouse bathroom - Boston.com

Officer Loses Gun In Police Parking Lot - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29

Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home

Cop Loses Badge, Gun While Investigation Continues into Trespass Claim - Police & Fire - East Hampton, NY Patch


----------



## P@triot

Geaux4it said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah interesting post of nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the cops in the US receive very little formal training and as evidenced by the number of innocent bystanders shot by police and the number of rounds they waste when firing at bad guys they obviously receive very little range time either.
> 
> Claiming just because they get paid as cops somehow makes them better then an average citizen is ignorant as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The LEO approach when engaged in a firefight is to 'spray and pray'.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Sad but true...


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
Click to expand...


According to [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION] - if a woman gets raped, it _is_ her *fault*.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as usual, the uninformed, juvenile liberal guesses as to the reality. Just so you know, guns are stolen form officers _every_ year in this nation.
> 
> As far as the criminal being armed....criminals will _always_ be armed. As ie pointed out many times in this thread already (and you're incapable of responding to): prostitution is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Domestic violence is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Child molestation is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Cocaine is outlawed and you haven't stopped that. Murder is outlawed and you haven't stopped that.
> 
> The fact that you _think_ you can stop criminals from getting guns just illustrates how ignorant, immature, and idealistic you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since your so informed then provide us with a number and a link.  Let's see what percent of the 232,000 they are.
> 
> Well as long as gun owners provide them with guns they will be armed.  That makes gun owners a major part of the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home
> 
> Mass. officer loses gun in courthouse bathroom - Boston.com
> 
> Officer Loses Gun In Police Parking Lot - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29
> 
> Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home
> 
> Cop Loses Badge, Gun While Investigation Continues into Trespass Claim - Police & Fire - East Hampton, NY Patch
Click to expand...



New York anyone? Four guns stolen from cops? lockers in East Village precinct | New York Post

Right out of the police station. I can find a lot more with simple searches.


----------



## hunarcy

Brain357 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year?  I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly.  Btw, what good is a gun when your not home?  Ouch, point security system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no comparison between his question and yours.  YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant.  Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.
> 
> I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes.  I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant?  He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals.  Yet 232,000 guns were stolen.  Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals.  But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you?  Have I stepped into the land of the idiots?  You've lost all credibility in my eyes.  Even the obvious eludes you.
Click to expand...


Having lost the respect of an idiot doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## P@triot

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since your so informed then provide us with a number and a link.  Let's see what percent of the 232,000 they are.
> 
> Well as long as gun owners provide them with guns they will be armed.  That makes gun owners a major part of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home
> 
> Mass. officer loses gun in courthouse bathroom - Boston.com
> 
> Officer Loses Gun In Police Parking Lot - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29
> 
> Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home
> 
> Cop Loses Badge, Gun While Investigation Continues into Trespass Claim - Police & Fire - East Hampton, NY Patch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> New York anyone? Four guns stolen from cops? lockers in East Village precinct | New York Post
> 
> Right out of the police station. I can find a lot more with simple searches.
Click to expand...


Like all liberals, doing simple searches and educating himself _before_ pretending to be an expert is too much "work".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NONE of the proposals from Obama or the Democrats on new laws last year or this would have had any effect on all but one of the shootings in schools or mass shootings and then since the Mother had no record no mental problems and no history there is no reason to believe even with new laws she couldn't have kept the weapons she bought legally.

Background checks are mandatory INCLUDING at Gun Shows. There is no compelling evidence that private sellers being forced to do background checks would prevent any shooting that has occurred that the left is all up in arms about.

Probably less then 20 people are killed a year by semi automatic "assault" rifles. And the total for rifles of all kinds is 400. There is no compelling State interest in outlawing supposed "assault" weapons, they are seldom used to commit crime in this country and so few murders occur with them that the right to keep and bear far out ways any supposed State interest in banning them.

Same with 15 and 30 round magazines. No compelling State interest exists when one goes through the crime statistics to support a ban.

It is already illegal for those adjudged mentally unfit to own possess or use firearms. The problem is local authorities either do not know how to process someone they suspect of fitting this category or they are afraid they will be sued by the local Liberal dumb asses for sending people to court over mental issues.

It is already illegal for felons to possess own or use firearms. It is illegal to sell to them any firearm. Nothing the President suggested nothing Congress suggested wold have had any effect on how criminals get firearms already.

The 2nd Amendment is a protected right in order for the State to curtail limit or remove it requires compelling State interests that far out reach the benefit


----------



## auditor0007

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Gun control is pointless unless all guns are removed completely as has been done in certain countries such as Great Britain.  Yes, GB still has murders and many times murderers use knives or other lethal weapons, but the overall homicide rate is much lower than in the US.  We are not going to take everyone's guns away, so more gun control laws will not reduce gun crimes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control is pointless unless all guns are removed completely as has been done in certain countries such as Great Britain.  Yes, GB still has murders and many times murderers use knives or other lethal weapons, but the overall homicide rate is much lower than in the US.  We are not going to take everyone's guns away, so more gun control laws will not reduce gun crimes.
Click to expand...


Actually violent crimes are many many times more prevalent in England then the US and firearm crimes have gone UP there are more firearms on the street in England now then before the ban.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home
> 
> Mass. officer loses gun in courthouse bathroom - Boston.com
> 
> Officer Loses Gun In Police Parking Lot - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29
> 
> Monroeville police officer loses his service weapon | Allegheny Co. News - WTAE Home
> 
> Cop Loses Badge, Gun While Investigation Continues into Trespass Claim - Police & Fire - East Hampton, NY Patch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York anyone? Four guns stolen from cops? lockers in East Village precinct | New York Post
> 
> Right out of the police station. I can find a lot more with simple searches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all liberals, doing simple searches and educating himself _before_ pretending to be an expert is too much "work".
Click to expand...


Ummm...that's still a tiny, tiny percent of the 232,000....


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION] - if a woman gets raped, it _is_ her *fault*.
Click to expand...


No it is not her fault.  I love how you guys won't take any responsibility.  Very heroic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can explain your solution to the problem, that comports with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## OKTexas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain your solution to the problem, that comports with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.


----------



## Brain357

OKTexas said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain your solution to the problem, that comports with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.
Click to expand...


How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain your solution to the problem, that comports with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
Click to expand...


Acceptable risk....

Meanwhile.....

Detroit Police Chief Recommends People Get Guns

Detroit's police chief is sticking to his guns after being criticized for supporting citizens to arm themselves.

Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a Detroit resident who challenged his pro-gun stance. Mr. Craig made national news earlier this month after he said armed citizens could serve as a deterrent to criminals, The Detroit News reported.

&#8220;Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation,&#8221; he said at a press conference on Jan. 2. &#8220;I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.

Read more: Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times 
Follow us:  [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> New York anyone? Four guns stolen from cops? lockers in East Village precinct | New York Post
> 
> Right out of the police station. I can find a lot more with simple searches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all liberals, doing simple searches and educating himself _before_ pretending to be an expert is too much "work".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm...that's still a tiny, tiny percent of the 232,000....
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that it is a small percent - but it's yet another glaring example of your contradictions and insanity.

Because of your lack of knowledge - you view law enforcement as some super-human cyborg entity of altruistic perfection (it's called liberal brain washing). You celebrate them being armed while coming up with every absurd excuse imaginable why the average citizen should have "an alarm system instead of a gun".

But law enforcement officers are just people like you and me. And they are just as susceptible to the same mistakes as you and me. They lose their gun and/or have it stolen. They have AD's. Their stray rounds strike innocent bystanders. They make bad decisions. And yet you _want_ your law enforcement officers armed to the teeth instead of carrying an "alarm" around.

So what is the difference between a citizen and a citizen working as a law enforcement officer? The way you view them. In other words - it's _all_ in your head.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION] - if a woman gets raped, it _is_ her *fault*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not her fault.  I love how you guys won't take any responsibility.  Very heroic.
Click to expand...


Well now you're contradicting yourself once _again_. If the victim in a gun theft is to blame for not preventing their firearm from being stolen, then the victim in a rape is to blame for not preventing their rape.

This is the problem with you liberals. You contradict your own views. You people are incapable of creating a consistent narrative (which is why all of you come off as buffoon's in a debate).


----------



## P@triot

Geaux4it said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk....
> 
> Meanwhile.....
> 
> Detroit Police Chief Recommends People Get Guns
> 
> Detroit's police chief is sticking to his guns after being criticized for supporting citizens to arm themselves.
> 
> Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a Detroit resident who challenged his pro-gun stance. Mr. Craig made national news earlier this month after he said armed citizens could serve as a deterrent to criminals, The Detroit News reported.
> 
> Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation, he said at a press conference on Jan. 2. I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.
> 
> Read more: Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times
> Follow us:  [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
Click to expand...


I've yet to talk with an officer who didn't believe that all law abiding citizens should be armed at all times. They all say the exact same thing: "I can't be everywhere at the same time".

People like brainless live in their little naïve utopian world where the police "protect" you. Not only is that not their job, it's actually illegal. To protect you, they would have to arrest someone _before_ they committed a crime. And that is simply unconstitutional. You must become a victim first - and then law enforcement can make an arrest. But if you've already become a victim, it's too late.

People like brainless need to understand the old saying: "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away".


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all liberals, doing simple searches and educating himself _before_ pretending to be an expert is too much "work".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...that's still a tiny, tiny percent of the 232,000....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that it is a small percent - but it's yet another glaring example of your contradictions and insanity.
> 
> Because of your lack of knowledge - you view law enforcement as some super-human cyborg entity of altruistic perfection (it's called liberal brain washing). You celebrate them being armed while coming up with every absurd excuse imaginable why the average citizen should have "an alarm system instead of a gun".
> 
> But law enforcement officers are just people like you and me. And they are just as susceptible to the same mistakes as you and me. They lose their gun and/or have it stolen. They have AD's. Their stray rounds strike innocent bystanders. They make bad decisions. And yet you _want_ your law enforcement officers armed to the teeth instead of carrying an "alarm" around.
> 
> So what is the difference between a citizen and a citizen working as a law enforcement officer? The way you view them. In other words - it's _all_ in your head.
Click to expand...


232,000 guns stolen each year and it is absurd to suggest gun owners get alarm systems and safes?  Why is it so important to you that criminals be armed?


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...that's still a tiny, tiny percent of the 232,000....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that it is a small percent - but it's yet another glaring example of your contradictions and insanity.
> 
> Because of your lack of knowledge - you view law enforcement as some super-human cyborg entity of altruistic perfection (it's called liberal brain washing). You celebrate them being armed while coming up with every absurd excuse imaginable why the average citizen should have "an alarm system instead of a gun".
> 
> But law enforcement officers are just people like you and me. And they are just as susceptible to the same mistakes as you and me. They lose their gun and/or have it stolen. They have AD's. Their stray rounds strike innocent bystanders. They make bad decisions. And yet you _want_ your law enforcement officers armed to the teeth instead of carrying an "alarm" around.
> 
> So what is the difference between a citizen and a citizen working as a law enforcement officer? The way you view them. In other words - it's _all_ in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 232,000 guns stolen each year and it is absurd to suggest gun owners get alarm systems and safes?  Why is it so important to you that criminals be armed?
Click to expand...


Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to [MENTION=43262]Brain357[/MENTION] - if a woman gets raped, it _is_ her *fault*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not her fault.  I love how you guys won't take any responsibility.  Very heroic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now you're contradicting yourself once _again_. If the victim in a gun theft is to blame for not preventing their firearm from being stolen, then the victim in a rape is to blame for not preventing their rape.
> 
> This is the problem with you liberals. You contradict your own views. You people are incapable of creating a consistent narrative (which is why all of you come off as buffoon's in a debate).
Click to expand...


Gun owners choose the responsibility of gun ownership.  You don't have to own a gun, but if you do it's your responsibility to keep it from criminals.  Show some personal responsibility.

Based on your arguments your for making rape legal right?


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk....
> 
> Meanwhile.....
> 
> Detroit Police Chief Recommends People Get Guns
> 
> Detroit's police chief is sticking to his guns after being criticized for supporting citizens to arm themselves.
> 
> Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a Detroit resident who challenged his pro-gun stance. Mr. Craig made national news earlier this month after he said armed citizens could serve as a deterrent to criminals, The Detroit News reported.
> 
> Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation, he said at a press conference on Jan. 2. I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.
> 
> Read more: Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times
> Follow us:  [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to talk with an officer who didn't believe that all law abiding citizens should be armed at all times. They all say the exact same thing: "I can't be everywhere at the same time".
> 
> People like brainless live in their little naïve utopian world where the police "protect" you. Not only is that not their job, it's actually illegal. To protect you, they would have to arrest someone _before_ they committed a crime. And that is simply unconstitutional. You must become a victim first - and then law enforcement can make an arrest. But if you've already become a victim, it's too late.
> 
> People like brainless need to understand the old saying: "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away".
Click to expand...


Thanks to gun owners, criminals are armed.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Rottweiler said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk....
> 
> Meanwhile.....
> 
> Detroit Police Chief Recommends People Get Guns
> 
> Detroit's police chief is sticking to his guns after being criticized for supporting citizens to arm themselves.
> 
> Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a Detroit resident who challenged his pro-gun stance. Mr. Craig made national news earlier this month after he said armed citizens could serve as a deterrent to criminals, The Detroit News reported.
> 
> Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation, he said at a press conference on Jan. 2. I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.
> 
> Read more: Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times
> Follow us:  [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to talk with an officer who didn't believe that all law abiding citizens should be armed at all times. They all say the exact same thing: "I can't be everywhere at the same time".
> 
> People like brainless live in their little naïve utopian world where the police "protect" you. Not only is that not their job, it's actually illegal. To protect you, they would have to arrest someone _before_ they committed a crime. And that is simply unconstitutional. You must become a victim first - and then law enforcement can make an arrest. But if you've already become a victim, it's too late.
> 
> People like brainless need to understand the old saying: "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away".
Click to expand...


Like you, I have never heard a police officer say that law abiding citizens should not be armed.  Quite the opposite actually. They know that their job usually starts after a crime is committed and although their presence can prevent crimes, they cannot be everywhere all the time.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...that's still a tiny, tiny percent of the 232,000....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that it is a small percent - but it's yet another glaring example of your contradictions and insanity.
> 
> Because of your lack of knowledge - you view law enforcement as some super-human cyborg entity of altruistic perfection (it's called liberal brain washing). You celebrate them being armed while coming up with every absurd excuse imaginable why the average citizen should have "an alarm system instead of a gun".
> 
> But law enforcement officers are just people like you and me. And they are just as susceptible to the same mistakes as you and me. They lose their gun and/or have it stolen. They have AD's. Their stray rounds strike innocent bystanders. They make bad decisions. And yet you _want_ your law enforcement officers armed to the teeth instead of carrying an "alarm" around.
> 
> So what is the difference between a citizen and a citizen working as a law enforcement officer? The way you view them. In other words - it's _all_ in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 232,000 guns stolen each year and it is absurd to suggest gun owners get alarm systems and safes?  Why is it so important to you that criminals be armed?
Click to expand...


You didn't say "gun owners should get alarms and safes". You said gun owners should get an alarm *instead of* a gun. You said (and I quote), "it is *more* effective".

Are you officially changing your position now?


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk....
> 
> Meanwhile.....
> 
> Detroit Police Chief Recommends People Get Guns
> 
> Detroit's police chief is sticking to his guns after being criticized for supporting citizens to arm themselves.
> 
> Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a Detroit resident who challenged his pro-gun stance. Mr. Craig made national news earlier this month after he said armed citizens could serve as a deterrent to criminals, The Detroit News reported.
> 
> &#8220;Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation,&#8221; he said at a press conference on Jan. 2. &#8220;I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.
> 
> Read more: Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times
> Follow us:  [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to talk with an officer who didn't believe that all law abiding citizens should be armed at all times. They all say the exact same thing: "I can't be everywhere at the same time".
> 
> People like brainless live in their little naïve utopian world where the police "protect" you. Not only is that not their job, it's actually illegal. To protect you, they would have to arrest someone _before_ they committed a crime. And that is simply unconstitutional. You must become a victim first - and then law enforcement can make an arrest. But if you've already become a victim, it's too late.
> 
> People like brainless need to understand the old saying: "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks to gun owners, criminals are armed.
Click to expand...


You keep repeating the same lie over and over. Either past a link showing that 232,000 "stolen" guns per year are used in crimes or go away. You're only destroying your own credibility.

As I've already stated, a certain percentage of those aren't even stolen. They are _reported_ stolen as part of insurance fraud. You've become the laughing stock of this thread.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that it is a small percent - but it's yet another glaring example of your contradictions and insanity.
> 
> Because of your lack of knowledge - you view law enforcement as some super-human cyborg entity of altruistic perfection (it's called liberal brain washing). You celebrate them being armed while coming up with every absurd excuse imaginable why the average citizen should have "an alarm system instead of a gun".
> 
> But law enforcement officers are just people like you and me. And they are just as susceptible to the same mistakes as you and me. They lose their gun and/or have it stolen. They have AD's. Their stray rounds strike innocent bystanders. They make bad decisions. And yet you _want_ your law enforcement officers armed to the teeth instead of carrying an "alarm" around.
> 
> So what is the difference between a citizen and a citizen working as a law enforcement officer? The way you view them. In other words - it's _all_ in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 232,000 guns stolen each year and it is absurd to suggest gun owners get alarm systems and safes?  Why is it so important to you that criminals be armed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't say "gun owners should get alarms and safes". You said gun owners should get an alarm *instead of* a gun. You said (and I quote), "it is *more* effective".
> 
> Are you officially changing your position now?
Click to expand...


No actually if you go back you'll see I suggested alarms and safes for gun owners.  While I think for most the alarm is the better option if your only going to have one or the other, I've never said don't have both.  You gun nuts just make up things.


----------



## OKTexas

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain your solution to the problem, that comports with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
Click to expand...


No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.


----------



## Brain357

OKTexas said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
Click to expand...



Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
Click to expand...


The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
Click to expand...


That wasn't the question.  Your focus is killing criminals, how many you get so far?  Something tells me no more than I have killed.


----------



## OKTexas

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
Click to expand...


Guess you missed my post early in the thread that addressed that, maybe you should get caught up before you make yourself look more like an idiot than you already have.


----------



## Brain357

OKTexas said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you missed my post early in the thread that addressed that, maybe you should get caught up before you make yourself look more like an idiot than you already have.
Click to expand...


That doesn't answer the question again.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
Click to expand...


How many criminals obey gun laws? Seems you're hellbent on attacking Texas here, but not answering to how many criminals obey gun laws.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.  Your focus is killing criminals, how many you get so far?  Something tells me no more than I have killed.
Click to expand...


My focus is protecting me, my family and my property. I haven't had to kill anyone but I have held several men at gunpoint until the police arrived. But trust me, if I had to kill someone I wouldn't hesitate.


----------



## KevinWestern

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk....
> 
> Meanwhile.....
> 
> Detroit Police Chief Recommends People Get Guns
> 
> Detroit's police chief is sticking to his guns after being criticized for supporting citizens to arm themselves.
> 
> Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a Detroit resident who challenged his pro-gun stance. Mr. Craig made national news earlier this month after he said armed citizens could serve as a deterrent to criminals, The Detroit News reported.
> 
> Coming from California, where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation, he said at a press conference on Jan. 2. I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.
> 
> Read more: Detroit police chief: Armed citizens can make city safer - Washington Times
> Follow us:  [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to talk with an officer who didn't believe that all law abiding citizens should be armed at all times. They all say the exact same thing: "I can't be everywhere at the same time".
> 
> People like brainless live in their little naïve utopian world where the police "protect" you. Not only is that not their job, it's actually illegal. To protect you, they would have to arrest someone _before_ they committed a crime. And that is simply unconstitutional. You must become a victim first - and then law enforcement can make an arrest. But if you've already become a victim, it's too late.
> 
> People like brainless need to understand the old saying: "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks to gun owners, criminals are armed.
Click to expand...


Criminals are armed because guns exist.


----------



## OKTexas

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you missed my post early in the thread that addressed that, maybe you should get caught up before you make yourself look more like an idiot than you already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer the question again.
Click to expand...


Go read my proposal dumb ass, you're the smart ass little piss ant in the thread, had you paid attention you would already have the answer. I'm not going to repeat myself time and again the way you have with your little meaningless crap.


----------



## TemplarKormac

KevinWestern said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to talk with an officer who didn't believe that all law abiding citizens should be armed at all times. They all say the exact same thing: "I can't be everywhere at the same time".
> 
> People like brainless live in their little naïve utopian world where the police "protect" you. Not only is that not their job, it's actually illegal. To protect you, they would have to arrest someone _before_ they committed a crime. And that is simply unconstitutional. You must become a victim first - and then law enforcement can make an arrest. But if you've already become a victim, it's too late.
> 
> People like brainless need to understand the old saying: "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to gun owners, criminals are armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals are armed because guns exist.
Click to expand...


Criminals are armed whether guns exist or not. Knives, bats, crowbars, brass knuckles....swords.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.  Your focus is killing criminals, how many you get so far?  Something tells me no more than I have killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My focus is protecting me, my family and my property. I haven't had to kill anyone but I have held several men at gunpoint until the police arrived. But trust me, if I had to kill someone I wouldn't hesitate.
Click to expand...


So that's your focus and you got the same number as me.  You must be a liberal panty waste.  Funny rant though.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question.  Your focus is killing criminals, how many you get so far?  Something tells me no more than I have killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My focus is protecting me, my family and my property. I haven't had to kill anyone but I have held several men at gunpoint until the police arrived. But trust me, if I had to kill someone I wouldn't hesitate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's your focus and you got the same number as me.  You must be a liberal panty waste.  Funny rant though.
Click to expand...


What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.


----------



## KevinWestern

TemplarKormac said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to gun owners, criminals are armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are armed because guns exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals are armed whether guns exist or not. Knives, bats, crowbars, brass knuckles....swords.
Click to expand...


*Criminals are armed with guns because guns exist. As far as I can tell, there's really no feasible way to remove guns from a society completely.

Therefore I think it's only rational to allow law-abiding citizens the right to purchase a gun if they feel it necessary. I'm not worried about the law abiding citizens....


----------



## gipper

I have a family member who has always been adamantly against gun ownership.  But, a funny thing happened recently.  

He has lived in Manhattan for over 20 years without ever experiencing crime of any kind...other than bitching about neighbors failing to pick up their dog's poop.

Well he recently moved across the river to New Jersey, to an area much less populated than Manhattan.  While walking home alone from the train one night, he was mugged by two young black men.  He now feels very unsafe walking near his home at night.  

Some people must experience crime first hand to realize they need to protect themselves.


----------



## Brain357

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My focus is protecting me, my family and my property. I haven't had to kill anyone but I have held several men at gunpoint until the police arrived. But trust me, if I had to kill someone I wouldn't hesitate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your focus and you got the same number as me.  You must be a liberal panty waste.  Funny rant though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.
Click to expand...


Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes.  Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your focus and you got the same number as me.  You must be a liberal panty waste.  Funny rant though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes.  Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.
Click to expand...


Apparently he or she still has his or her guns. As in not stolen yet.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

gipper said:


> I have a family member who has always been adamantly against gun ownership.  But, a funny thing happened recently.
> 
> He has lived in Manhattan for over 20 years without ever experiencing crime of any kind...other than bitching about neighbors failing to pick up their dog's poop.
> 
> Well he recently moved across the river to New Jersey, to an area much less populated than Manhattan.  While walking home alone from the train one night, he was mugged by two young black men.  He now feels very unsafe walking near his home at night.
> 
> Some people must experience crime first hand to realize that they need to protect themselves.



He was fortunate, he could have just as easily been killed. 

I prefer not to wait until I have a flat to make sure there is a spare in my trunk, I prefer not to wait until my house catches fire before I install a smoke alarm and buy a home extinguisher. There are so many things a person should have before they need it and self protection should be at the forefront.


----------



## P@triot

Lonestar_logic said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would much prefer concentrating on killing the criminals that would break in a citizens home, but fucking liberal panty waste like you don't have the balls to do that. So take your little rants and accusations and direct them to the ones that are actually the fucking problem, dumb asses like you and criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
Click to expand...


  

We need a lot more states like Texas. I don't understand these 30 year sentences. If you're such a danger to society that we need to keep you locked away in a special facility, we really should just execute your dumb ass and move on.


----------



## P@triot

gipper said:


> I have a family member who has always been adamantly against gun ownership.  But, a funny thing happened recently.
> 
> He has lived in Manhattan for over 20 years without ever experiencing crime of any kind...other than bitching about neighbors failing to pick up their dog's poop.
> 
> Well he recently moved across the river to New Jersey, to an area much less populated than Manhattan.  While walking home alone from the train one night, he was mugged by two young black men.  He now feels very unsafe walking near his home at night.
> 
> Some people must experience crime first hand to realize they need to protect themselves.



I had a hilarious similar experience one time [MENTION=27454]gipper[/MENTION]. I've spent my entire adult life with a gun on me. I'm armed 24x7. Always have been, always will be. But a friend of mine had a wife who was a typical idealist anti-gun liberal.

Well one day we all go to an event together with our children. As we enter this event, we are warned by staff that a child is missing. My friend's wife looks at me with panic and says "do you have your gun on you right now"?. I shook my head and told her "yes". But with a growing look of panic, she repeats it "no - really - do you have your gun on you right now" (she thought I was just trying to "comfort" her).

We all started laughing and I had to _adamantly_ explain to her that I had my gun on me (along with 6 magazines - as I always do as well). She was anti-gun, until she thought her own children were in danger. Then, suddenly, she wanted guns around her! 

It reminded me of that old saying "there are no atheists in a fox hole". People act like they don't need God until their life is in danger. People also act like they don't need a gun....until their life is in danger. And then, suddenly, they are crying out for _both_! Liberals are like children. Unaware of reality. But, unfortunately, unlike children they actually get to cast votes and shape policy (which is what makes them such a cancer to America).


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Rottweiler said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a lot more states like Texas. I don't understand these 30 year sentences. If you're such a danger to society that we need to keep you locked away in a special facility, we really should just execute your dumb ass and move on.
Click to expand...


I like Ron White's bit on the death penalty.

[ame=http://youtu.be/TgQRgT15f9U]Ron White Texas Death Penalty - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's a mindless and dumb rant.  How many criminals have you killed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a lot more states like Texas. I don't understand these 30 year sentences. If you're such a danger to society that we need to keep you locked away in a special facility, we really should just execute your dumb ass and move on.
Click to expand...


While it will disappoint most of you I generally agree with this.  I think if there is a confession or multiple witnesses lets just get rid of them.


----------



## P@triot

Lonestar_logic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a family member who has always been adamantly against gun ownership.  But, a funny thing happened recently.
> 
> He has lived in Manhattan for over 20 years without ever experiencing crime of any kind...other than bitching about neighbors failing to pick up their dog's poop.
> 
> Well he recently moved across the river to New Jersey, to an area much less populated than Manhattan.  While walking home alone from the train one night, he was mugged by two young black men.  He now feels very unsafe walking near his home at night.
> 
> Some people must experience crime first hand to realize that they need to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was fortunate, he could have just as easily been killed.
> 
> I prefer not to wait until I have a flat to make sure there is a spare in my trunk, I prefer not to wait until my house catches fire before I install a smoke alarm and buy a home extinguisher. There are so many things a person should have before they need it and self protection should be at the forefront.
Click to expand...


The problem is the liberal view of law enforcement. They were brainwashed as children that the police are there to "protect" them. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Law enforcement cannot act until after a crime has been committed. Which means, you've already become a victim. I don't want to be a victim. I'm going to take any reasonable step to not be a victim. Just like I take every reasonable step when I get into an automobile to not become a patient in a hospital as a result of my travels in that vehicle.

Americans needs to start understanding what law enforcement is - a QRF (Quick Reaction Force). When our special forces conduct operations, they arrange for a QRF team to be standing by. They don't go unarmed into the operation because the QRF is there. They go heavily armed and they protect themselves. The QRF is just additional "calvary" when needed. And that's what law enforcement is. It is up to you to provide your own security and defend yourself and your family. Law enforcement is just the readied quick reaction force to provide you with assistance. But it's going to take them _time_ to get there - so you better be able to defend yourself until they arrive.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a lot more states like Texas. I don't understand these 30 year sentences. If you're such a danger to society that we need to keep you locked away in a special facility, we really should just execute your dumb ass and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it will disappoint most of you I generally agree with this.  I think if there is a confession or multiple witnesses lets just get rid of them.
Click to expand...


Or DNA, etc. Any overwhelming evidence that removes any and all doubt of guilt. If there is video of the crime, a witness, DNA, etc. it makes no sense to hold these people. For one thing, far too many have them have managed to escape through out history and continue their violent ways. Now granted, we're doing a better and better job all the time of preventing that. But it still does happen. In addition, they also seriously injure (and sometimes even kill) guards. The risk and the cost just doesn't make any sense to me. Execute them and make the world a safer place for everyone.


----------



## P@triot

Wasn't even looking for a story like this - happened to stumble across it. The timing was perfect though...

» Police Fail to Stop Violent Attack Just Outside Police Station


----------



## OKTexas

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Texas has killed 509 and that's just since 1976.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a lot more states like Texas. I don't understand these 30 year sentences. If you're such a danger to society that we need to keep you locked away in a special facility, we really should just execute your dumb ass and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it will disappoint most of you I generally agree with this.  I think if there is a confession or multiple witnesses lets just get rid of them.
Click to expand...


So you agree that the best way to keep guns out of criminal hands is to eliminate criminal hands?


----------



## P@triot

This will keep the liberal wing-nuts happy. I, however, find this appalling. Don't get me wrong, I like the intent. But do you know how easy it is to jam radio frequencies? And what about when the watch battery fails or the wireless fails on its own? I don't want my life hinging on _wireless_ (of _all_ things) working....

Check Out the James Bond-Style Gun That Only Works When Fired by Owner


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and guns are so good that 232,000 of them are stolen from gun owners each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners do not invite criminals to steal guns. It is not irresponsible to be a victim of theft. What is irresponsible is not being prepared and capable of defending your home and family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but if your gun falls in the hands of a criminal it is your fault.  How about you guys show some personal responsibility?  You wouldn't need a gun to defend your home if that irresponsible gun owner hadn't supplied the criminal with a gun.
Click to expand...


If I DROP my gun into the hands of a criminal, it's my fault, but if some sonofabitch survives breaking into my home and makes off with one of my firearms the only possible reason you could blame that on me is if I missed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Brain357 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain your solution to the problem, that comports with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you PM'd the idiot a dictionary along with this post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you focus on how to stop your fellow gun owners from supplying criminals with 232,000 guns  a year.
Click to expand...


Is that your solution?


----------



## P@triot

The annual survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police polls more than twenty thousand chiefs of police and sheriffs. In 2010, 95% of respondents said they believed that any law-abiding citizen [should] be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense. 75% said that concealed-handgun permits issued in one state should be honored by other states in the way that drivers licenses are recognized through the country and that making citizens permits portable would facilitate the violent-crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community.

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. Control. Threshold Editions. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11


----------



## Geaux4it

OKTexas said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a lot more states like Texas. I don't understand these 30 year sentences. If you're such a danger to society that we need to keep you locked away in a special facility, we really should just execute your dumb ass and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it will disappoint most of you I generally agree with this.  I think if there is a confession or multiple witnesses lets just get rid of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree that the best way to keep guns out of criminal hands is to eliminate criminal hands?
Click to expand...


That would be a good start indeed

-Geaux


----------



## hunarcy

KevinWestern said:


> Criminals are armed because guns exist.



Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Rottweiler said:


> This will keep the liberal wing-nuts happy. I, however, find this appalling. Don't get me wrong, I like the intent. But do you know how easy it is to jam radio frequencies? And what about when the watch battery fails or the wireless fails on its own? I don't want my life hinging on _wireless_ (of _all_ things) working....
> 
> Check Out the James Bond-Style Gun That Only Works When Fired by Owner



It wouldn't work if you had to fire it with your off hand. Unless you had two watches.


----------



## KevinWestern

hunarcy said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are armed because guns exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.
Click to expand...


My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws. 

My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).

I'm a pro-second amendment type person.


----------



## Bumberclyde

KevinWestern said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are armed because guns exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.
> 
> My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).
> 
> I'm a pro-second amendment type person.
Click to expand...

Don't criminals and mental cases have 2nd amendment rights?


----------



## KevinWestern

Bumberclyde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.
> 
> My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).
> 
> I'm a pro-second amendment type person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't criminals and mental cases have 2nd amendment rights?
Click to expand...


Criminals in jail (and on probation) and mental patients who are determined to be a danger to themselves and others don't always have the same rights as the rest of us.

Example: we forcibly put criminals in a jail cell and tell them they "can't leave no matter what". That is something that would be illegal to do for a non-criminal.

Where you getting at?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.
> 
> My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).
> 
> I'm a pro-second amendment type person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't criminals and mental cases have 2nd amendment rights?
Click to expand...


Dude, what is the matter with you?  I've already answered this twice.  You cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without the DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  What about that is unclear to you?  You have the right to not incriminate yourself, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to a trial by jury, etc.  If with those rights, government can convict you then your rights can be restricted, including the right to own a gun.

As for "mental cases," there is no difference.  To remove anyone's rights, they must receive the due process of law.  A despot like Obama would declare it insane to be Republican if he had the power to do it without due process.  Fortunately, he doesn't.
 [MENTION=44706]Bumberclyde[/MENTION]


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your focus and you got the same number as me.  You must be a liberal panty waste.  Funny rant though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes.  Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.
Click to expand...


What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.


----------



## Geaux4it

I don't need no stinking plan. 

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> I don't need no stinking plan.
> 
> -Geaux



Yes, that's the point of the thread, that no plan works.  We're nearing almost 200 pages with no liberal presenting a plan other than a few who proposed we turn our country into a virtual Police State, which would be to say the least throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## P@triot

kaz said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need no stinking plan.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the point of the thread, that no plan works.  We're nearing almost 200 pages with no liberal presenting a plan other than a few who proposed we turn our country into a virtual Police State, which would be to say the least throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...


This was the predictable outcome. Look at the history of that idiot party...

What was their "plan" for healthcare? Stick a bunch of shit into a 2,000 page document and then tell everyone "we have to pass it before we find out what is in it". And then what was their "plan" after that? Spend three years building a website which not only doesn't work, but it actually provides cybercriminals with ALL of your private information (SSN, DOB, address, phone number, etc.).

The left is made up of a bunch of ignorant hacks who are there for one reason - they are thirsty for power. And they will offer the parasite class any table scrap imaginable so long as it bribes said parasite for their vote and ensures the power they crave.


----------



## auditor0007

RetiredGySgt said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control is pointless unless all guns are removed completely as has been done in certain countries such as Great Britain.  Yes, GB still has murders and many times murderers use knives or other lethal weapons, but the overall homicide rate is much lower than in the US.  We are not going to take everyone's guns away, so more gun control laws will not reduce gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually violent crimes are many many times more prevalent in England then the US and firearm crimes have gone UP there are more firearms on the street in England now then before the ban.
Click to expand...


The statistics you are referring to do not compare apples to apples as the UK's violent crime rates includes simple assault and many lesser crimes where the US totals do not.  When looking at the murder rate, the US has a higher rate by a 4 to 1 margin.  

Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog



> As Bier put it, "The FBI&#8217;s Uniform Crime Reports defines a &#8216;violent crime&#8217; as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all &#8216;crimes against the person,&#8217; including simple assaults, all robberies, and all &#8216;sexual offenses,&#8217; as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and &#8216;forcible rapes.&#8217; "



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/


----------



## Geaux4it

auditor0007 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun control is pointless unless all guns are removed completely as has been done in certain countries such as Great Britain.  Yes, GB still has murders and many times murderers use knives or other lethal weapons, but the overall homicide rate is much lower than in the US.  We are not going to take everyone's guns away, so more gun control laws will not reduce gun crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually violent crimes are many many times more prevalent in England then the US and firearm crimes have gone UP there are more firearms on the street in England now then before the ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statistics you are referring to do not compare apples to apples as the UK's violent crime rates includes simple assault and many lesser crimes where the US totals do not.  When looking at the murder rate, the US has a higher rate by a 4 to 1 margin.
> 
> Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Bier put it, "The FBIs Uniform Crime Reports defines a violent crime as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> The statistics you are referring to do not compare apples to apples as the UK's violent crime rates includes simple assault and many lesser crimes where the US totals do not.  When looking at the murder rate, the US has a higher rate by a 4 to 1 margin.



Outside several blue inner cities, we have as low or lower a crime rate.  Murders happen mostly here where gun laws have the least impact.  If you want to address murder rates here, end the idiotic war on drugs, deal with illegal immigration and end the minimum wage so inner city kids can get legitimate jobs.

If you don't want to address those, don't pretend you care.


----------



## hunarcy

KevinWestern said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are armed because guns exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals would be armed if guns didn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post was a response to someone saying that "because there's so many legal guns in circulation, criminals are armed" in an attempt to push for more restrictive gun laws.
> 
> My reply was along the vein of guns will always exist, and because they exist criminals will always be armed (regardless of laws).
> 
> I'm a pro-second amendment type person.
Click to expand...


I understand.  But, my point is that the problem exists because of criminals, not firearms.


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your focus? How do you propose we keep guns from criminals without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens and without undue restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes.  Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.
Click to expand...


Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?


----------



## KevinWestern

Brain357 said:


> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?



What do you suggest we do about the gun stealing problem?


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes.  Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
Click to expand...


So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns?   And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns?  It's stealing them or they won't be armed?  Seriously?


----------



## kaz

KevinWestern said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you suggest we do about the gun stealing problem?
Click to expand...


He's committing a "casual oversimplification" logical fallacy.


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns?   And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns?  It's stealing them or they won't be armed?  Seriously?
Click to expand...


That doesn't answer my question.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns?   And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns?  It's stealing them or they won't be armed?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread.  So,

If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.

If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.

So which is it?


----------



## Brain357

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns?   And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns?  It's stealing them or they won't be armed?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread.  So,
> 
> If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.
> 
> If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> So which is it?
Click to expand...


So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?


----------



## nodoginnafight

martybegan said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as we start registering every book you own, every website you visit, and requiring registration for trial by jury or public defense, we will get right on it.
Click to expand...


Enforcing, not gutting (see Tiahrt Amendments), the laws we have is a legitimate first step. (Regardless of pithy nonsense rebutals).

I would also suggest that those who are grossly neglegent in securing their constitutionally-protected personal firearms should be held liable for the consequences.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread.  So,
> 
> If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.
> 
> If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?
Click to expand...

Strawman.  The thread doesn't say to list every stat about guns that is not "irrelevant."  It's to tell us your liberal plan for keeping guns away from criminals.  So, is this your plan or is it a red herring?  



Brain357 said:


> If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?



You need to answer the OP before telling anyone else they are 'avoiding the question,' hombre...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lets assume for a moment we outlaw the private ownership of firearms and somehow confiscate them all, shall we? Legal ones of course since there is no way to confiscate illegal ones.

Your argument is that stolen firearms are the only problem and that if they were not available to be stolen criminals would not have firearms. Once all the private law abiding citizens lost all their firearms the criminals would simple steal them from the Military and the police and private contractors. 

So your argument is moot and pointless since unless you plan to devise a plan to confiscate ALL firearms from ALL sources you will not stop the theft of firearms.

Now back to the OPS question, what is your plan to keep firearms from criminals?


----------



## KevinWestern

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread.  So,
> 
> If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.
> 
> If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
Click to expand...


300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)

225,000 stolen per year (estimated)

Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.

You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.


----------



## nodoginnafight

KevinWestern said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread.  So,
> 
> If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.
> 
> If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.


----------



## Brain357

KevinWestern said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my question is the OP's question, the basis for the thread.  So,
> 
> If your answer to my question is yes, then you're going to have to back up your view that they only way criminals get guns is to steal them.
> 
> If your answer to my question is no, then you're admitting that you're not addressing the OP and you should start a new thread to ask your question since it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns.  Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?


----------



## hazlnut

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again for the slow and ohh so stupid... If a tax on voting is unconstitutional because it INFRINGES the right, then a punitive tax on firearms is also unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
Click to expand...


In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior.


When you say "your" precious little social polices.  You mean "our".  You have a vote.  The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets.  And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.

We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.

The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.

As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine.  However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?


Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?


----------



## KevinWestern

nodoginnafight said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
Click to expand...


It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. 

I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Brain357 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns.  Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?
Click to expand...


Probably not - I'm in favor of doing what we can to cut off that supply.


----------



## KevinWestern

Brain357 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns.  Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?
Click to expand...


I think things like forcing people to report lost weapons could help combat this. It's tough. Things are stolen all the time - in every category of retail. How do you prevent? I'm not sure.


----------



## nodoginnafight

KevinWestern said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.
Click to expand...


I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.


----------



## KevinWestern

nodoginnafight said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.
Click to expand...


Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.


----------



## nodoginnafight

KevinWestern said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.
Click to expand...


I didn't suggest that.

Grossly neglegent (to me anyway, I guess a more full definition would have to be fleshed out) is leaving your piece in the front seat of your unlocked car while you pop into the store for a "minute." Or basically just being so stupidly careless that you virtually invite someone to take it. I'd also be OK with  charging someone who doesn't even make a thief defeat one, medium duty lock in order to steal their gun.


----------



## Brain357

KevinWestern said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good point. However my point was that out of the total guns in circulation, only X are actually stolen per year. But I suppose we can discuss simply how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> I'm not against the requirement of reporting of lost weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.
Click to expand...


Well this isn't stolen jewelry.  This is an extremely dangerous weapon now in the hands of a criminal.  Now this guys neighbors and community are potentially in danger.  Should the gun owner get a fine for the damage done to the community by arming a criminal?  Maybe gun owners should have to insure guns with a sum going to local gov if gun is stolen.  Owning a gun is a big responsibility.  If someone isn't up for it they shouldn't own one.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Holding people responsible for taking reasonable steps to secure their firearms is one small step. Reversing all the roadblocks to enforcing existing laws created by the tiahrt amendments (among others) is a good second step.

Don't fight new laws by saying "just enforce the laws we have" when you've gutted those laws and rendered them nearly impossible to enforce.

If we do that - along with requiring background checks on every gun sale (which means some measures to discourage shadow buyers also) then we probably don't need anything more intrusive. This menatlity that ANY common sense measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is an assault on the constitution is absurd. Creating false all-black or all-white arguments is wrong. I think there IS middle ground that could be effective and could create a safer environment without infringing on anyone's constitutional rights (which - like it or not - includes owning a gun).


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is per year, and 232,000 is a heck of a lot of guns.  Do you think they have a bigger source of guns?
Click to expand...


Your question is irrelevant.  If stolen guns were not stolen, then those criminals would get guns other ways.  Criminals take the path of least resistance.  You still need to show that if criminals didn't steal guns, they would not be able to get them.  Which of course is absurd, they could.

Also, you are arguing that stolen guns are the largest source of guns, it's on you to show that's true, it's not on anyone else to show it's not.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with 232,000 guns stolen each year I suggested gun owners get alarms and safes.  Kinda hard to claim you hinder crime when they are stealing your guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
Click to expand...


Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.

Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign.  This debate is _over_. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.
> 
> Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign.  This debate is _over_. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.
Click to expand...


I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.


----------



## Spoonman

keep it up gun grabbers.  the more you try to force your issues,  the more you fall behind.    what other industry is going through such massive expansion and still can't keep up with demand?    bottom line gun friendly states win,  blue states lose.  they lose jobs, revenue and tax dollars.  and the number of guns owned in there states are still exploding.   and this is just domestic manufacturing.  the amount of foreign product flooding this country is staggering.  and kids today want guns.  kids years ago barely had guns on their minds.  but today, they become legal age and they have to have one.    its going to be a real wild ride the next few years

Another Gun Maker Says "Ciao!" to Restrictive Laws (RGR, SWHC)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.
> 
> Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign.  This debate is _over_. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
Click to expand...


Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.

The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.


----------



## Brain357

Spoonman said:


> keep it up gun grabbers.  the more you try to force your issues,  the more you fall behind.    what other industry is going through such massive expansion and still can't keep up with demand?    bottom line gun friendly states win,  blue states lose.  they lose jobs, revenue and tax dollars.  and the number of guns owned in there states are still exploding.   and this is just domestic manufacturing.  the amount of foreign product flooding this country is staggering.  and kids today want guns.  kids years ago barely had guns on their minds.  but today, they become legal age and they have to have one.    its going to be a real wild ride the next few years
> 
> Another Gun Maker Says "Ciao!" to Restrictive Laws (RGR, SWHC)



So your happy about kids and guns? 
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.
> 
> Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign.  This debate is _over_. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.
> 
> The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.
Click to expand...


Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.
> 
> The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.
Click to expand...


Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of  sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.

Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Machine Guns are not ruled to be covered by the 2nd Amendment. But in all but a handful of States one can legally buy one or more fully automatic weapons.
> 
> The requirements for the ownership of fully automatic weapons is an infringement on the right to bear arms if applied to protected weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of  sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.
> 
> Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.
Click to expand...


Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.


----------



## Spoonman

Brain357 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> keep it up gun grabbers.  the more you try to force your issues,  the more you fall behind.    what other industry is going through such massive expansion and still can't keep up with demand?    bottom line gun friendly states win,  blue states lose.  they lose jobs, revenue and tax dollars.  and the number of guns owned in there states are still exploding.   and this is just domestic manufacturing.  the amount of foreign product flooding this country is staggering.  and kids today want guns.  kids years ago barely had guns on their minds.  but today, they become legal age and they have to have one.    its going to be a real wild ride the next few years
> 
> Another Gun Maker Says "Ciao!" to Restrictive Laws (RGR, SWHC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your happy about kids and guns?
> January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
Click to expand...

I couldn't be happier kids are wanting guns when they become of legal age.  it bodes well for the future


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of  sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.
> 
> Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.
Click to expand...


Gang shootings in the big cities do not make the National news. And the FBI does not break the firearms down with that category.


----------



## Spoonman

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right and I never hear about machine guns being used in crimes or mass shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of  sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.
> 
> Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.
Click to expand...


less than even hammers.   we should be banning hammers


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are an idiot. Hell I am pretty sure I posted a link to a story about LA police being robbed of a shit load of  sub machine guns. Gangs use them all the time. The problem is that rifles are hard to tote around and so they want machine pistols or uzis.
> 
> Most crime is carried out with a handgun as the other weapons are either to big or to wild in use. Yet retards like you want to ban the supposed "assault" rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post some links to stats showing how often machine guns are used in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gang shootings in the big cities do not make the National news. And the FBI does not break the firearms down with that category.
Click to expand...


Then it sounds like somebody is talking out of his rear.


----------



## Spoonman

anyone know what the fastest growing demographic in America is?      Gun owners


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.
> 
> Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign.  This debate is _over_. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
Click to expand...


I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.

Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.

What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.

How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with _one_ meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.

That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).


----------



## P@triot

nodoginnafight said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't suggest that.
> 
> Grossly neglegent (to me anyway, I guess a more full definition would have to be fleshed out) is leaving your piece in the front seat of your unlocked car while you pop into the store for a "minute." Or basically just being so stupidly careless that you virtually invite someone to take it. I'd also be OK with  charging someone who doesn't even make a thief defeat one, medium duty lock in order to steal their gun.
Click to expand...


So if a woman is "grossly negligent", you support charging her for her own rape [MENTION=16263]nodoginnafight[/MENTION]? _Really_? Man are you sick.....


----------



## P@triot

hazlnut said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All taxes are punitive to some degree.  Again, you are only coming up with excuses.  At least try to get some good ones and quit with the lame ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior*.
> 
> When you say "your" precious little social polices.  You mean "our".  You have a vote.  The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets.  And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.
> 
> We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.
> 
> The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.
> 
> As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine.  However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?
> 
> Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?
Click to expand...


It's always fascinating when Dumbocrats have an accidental moment of honesty.

Think about just how fuck'n sick that statement is. We all know that taxes are intended for one purpose and one purpose only: to run the Constitutional responsibilities of government.

But a liberal looks at it (like everything else) as a way to control others and as a way to punish.

Which is what makes it all the more hilarious when they claim that raising taxes doesn't effect employment. Wait a second - you just admitted that it's a way to punish. That means you clearly realize that taxes have a tremendous negative impact.

Oops! Looks like [MENTION=39768]hazlnut[/MENTION] just fucked up and forgot - in his web of lives - what his previous narrative was. He just got caught contradicting himself. Buh-bye credibility!


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - it's called the black market. It provides billions and billions and billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> If you can't stop cocaine, you can't stop firearms. They will be brought in from Mexico, Russia, China, hell - even Canada.
> 
> Where ever guns are banned (public schools, colleges, Chicago), bloody massacres ensue. Where ever guns are prevalent (Law Enforcement HQ's, NRA meetings, CCW training), peace and security reign.  This debate is _over_. Sorry, it just is. Reality has spoken - even if liberals are unable to deal with that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.
> 
> What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.
> 
> How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with _one_ meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.
> 
> That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).
Click to expand...


I think drug laws are completely different.  The only victim of drugs is the person taking them.  People aren't using drugs to kill other innocent people.  

Well you won't find me defending criminals.  But I think we need to look at why there are so many criminals.  I mean our jails are so full compared to other countries for a reason.  Now personally I think it has a lot to do with inequality, but being a righty I'm sure you'll deny that even exists.  But for those who commit the most horrible of crimes I say get rid of and for others it better not be like a resort.

Look I'm not trying to take guns away from everybody.  But as long as we can't seem to do anything about criminals and crazies I'd just assume do what we can to keep them away from guns.


----------



## P@triot

nodoginnafight said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are discussing how to keep guns from criminals and you think 232,000 guns stolen each year is irrelevant?  If you think they have a bigger source of guns than please share.  Why are you avoiding the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
Click to expand...


The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is? 

232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.

The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.
> 
> What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.
> 
> How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with _one_ meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.
> 
> That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think drug laws are completely different.  The only victim of drugs is the person taking them.  People aren't using drugs to kill other innocent people.
> 
> Well you won't find me defending criminals.  But I think we need to look at why there are so many criminals.  I mean our jails are so full compared to other countries for a reason.  Now personally I think it has a lot to do with inequality, but being a righty I'm sure you'll deny that even exists.  But for those who commit the most horrible of crimes I say get rid of and for others it better not be like a resort.
> 
> Look I'm not trying to take guns away from everybody.  But as long as we can't seem to do anything about criminals and crazies I'd just assume do what we can to keep them away from guns.
Click to expand...


Sorry... law abiding gun owners will not pay the cost of freedom for criminal element the government does not address

We will address it

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Rottweiler said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
Click to expand...


Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
> And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
> And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
> And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.
Click to expand...


There are more pressing issues impacting *ALL* Americans where the energy should be focused

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree... The radical, emotional, leftist, liberal anti-gun loons don't have the nerve to try. So instead, they shout from the mountaintop
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more pressing issues impacting *ALL* Americans where the energy should be focused
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are more pressing issues impacting *ALL* Americans where the energy should be focused
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.
Click to expand...


Firearm ownership is a powerful family tradition in many areas. There are many things that represent the Untied States way of life, and to some extent, the pubs and the citizens are letting them slip away.

Firearm ownership is not one of them

BTW- You do know the NRA used to draft and promote restrictive gun control laws

-Geaux


----------



## Brain357

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are more pressing issues impacting *ALL* Americans where the energy should be focused
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firearm ownership is a powerful family tradition in many areas. There are many things that represent the Untied States way of life, and to some extent, the pubs and the citizens are letting slip away.
> 
> Firearm ownership is not one of them
> 
> BTW- You do know the NRA used to draft and promote restrictive gun control laws
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


And now they went wacky and just promote more guns as the answer to everything.


----------



## Brain357

Rottweiler said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 total privately owned guns in the U.S. (estimated)
> 
> 225,000 stolen per year (estimated)
> 
> Represents only *0.075%* of total guns in circulation. Are you going to base your argument around a problem that effects less than 1% of the total guns in circulation? I don't think that's an efficient approach.
> 
> You could make the argument that this is truly irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
Click to expand...


Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty extra.


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.
Click to expand...


What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.
Click to expand...


But that impacts lawful gun owners. Why not impact the criminal by sending them to prison for life?  Severe consequences are effective tools.

Not many thefts in countries where they remove the hand of the offender.

-Geaux


----------



## Brain357

Geaux4it said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


While it sounds good, our jails are already packed.  It's not realistic that we could do that


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that impacts lawful gun owners. Why not impact the criminal by sending them to prison for life?  Severe consequences are effective tools.
> 
> Not many thefts in countries where they remove the hand of the offender.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Isn't it time for you to go kiss a carpet?


----------



## Geaux4it

Brain357 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it sounds good, our jails are already packed.  It's not realistic that we could do that
Click to expand...


If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it sounds good, our jails are already packed.  It's not realistic that we could do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Except that jail isn't the only option. A fingerprint scanner is one of many options.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it sounds good, our jails are already packed.  It's not realistic that we could do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that jail isn't the only option. A fingerprint scanner is one of many options.
Click to expand...


Again, your options impact the lawful citizen.. Prison does not

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

Geaux4it said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it sounds good, our jails are already packed.  It's not realistic that we could do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we do not build as many prisons as it takes, then we are not serious about crime prevention
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


That is ultimately how to reduce crime, keep the criminals we have in jail.   Now if we could just get the parties to stop manufacturing them.  The Republicans with the War on Drugs and other idiotic policies telling us what we can do with our bodies and funding organized crime in the process and the Democrats with the minimum wage which prevents inner city kids from getting legitimate jobs and their other programs to foster government dependency.


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty of access.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What impact do you think life in prison for theft of a gun would have?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it sounds good, our jails are already packed.  It's not realistic that we could do that
Click to expand...


Let's start by ending the war on drugs, letting the non-violent offenders go, and filling the space with violent criminals.


----------



## Wildman

Spoonman said:


> anyone know what the fastest growing demographic in America is?      Gun owners



thanks to the best gun salesman in the past 100 years !  

Obama backfires, gun sales in 2013 smash all records.


His actions convinced millions of Americans to buy more firearms than any time in history. *<--------<<<< the only thing he has done that is GOOD for America* 

The FBI reported that it performed an astounding 21,093,273 background checks for the year ending Dec. 31. In fact, eight of the top 10 highest weeks ever for National Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks were in 2013 (the other two were during Dec. 2012.)


MILLER: Obama backfires, gun sales in 2013 smash all records - Washington Times


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.



You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class.  OK, once again.   Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.

The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens.  So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.

CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work.  Price is just another method of making guns "illegal."  Criminals will just go buy illegal guns.  She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal."  The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.

You are doing the same thing.  You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership.  And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners.  Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class.  OK, once again.   Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.
> 
> The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens.  So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.
> 
> CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work.  Price is just another method of making guns "illegal."  Criminals will just go buy illegal guns.  She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal."  The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.
> 
> You are doing the same thing.  You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership.  And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners.  Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.
Click to expand...

Not only the fingerprint scanner, but make new guns with slightly bigger barrels that would need bigger bullets. Once the bullets in circulation are all shot, the new bullets won't fit the old guns. Check. And mate.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class.  OK, once again.   Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.
> 
> The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens.  So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.
> 
> CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work.  Price is just another method of making guns "illegal."  Criminals will just go buy illegal guns.  She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal."  The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.
> 
> You are doing the same thing.  You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership.  And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners.  Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only the fingerprint scanner, but make new guns with slightly bigger barrels that would need bigger bullets. Once the bullets in circulation are all shot, the new bullets won't fit the old guns. Check. And mate.
Click to expand...


I see.  So you concede criminals are smart enough to buy illegal guns, but illegal bullets, that they'd never think of.  Wow, you are quite the brainiac.


----------



## kaz

You know, clyde, there is a dimension to this you're not grasping.

You're trying to solve with laws a problem regarding the activities of people who by definition ... don't follow laws ...

Think about it.  When that synapses fires, you will suddenly grasp the OPs point ...


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> You know, clyde, there is a dimension to this you're not grasping.
> 
> You're trying to solve with laws a problem regarding the activities of people who by definition ... don't follow laws ...
> 
> Think about it.  When that synapses fires, you will suddenly grasp the OPs point ...



Cognitive dissonance... his brain won't let him grasp it.  The only way you can get a libtardian to grasp basic truths is for them to here it from their leadership.  They live on so many lies that their inherent level of dissonance is constantly stressing them into believing anything told to them by their masters on face.  Any liberal lie, no matter how big, simply can't be grasped by a libtardian mind.

For you see, if they were to admit the emperor has no clothes, they would be thrown to the wolves by their comrades.  Thus even though the emperor is stark naked, they see him clothed in regal attire.


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was the point of the whole discussion - keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Required reporting ... ok, but that's a very small part. If someone is grossly neglegent in securing their firearm - they should be charged criminally and civily liable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if I agree with that. Arrest a guy because someone broke into his house and stole a gun (along with other valuable items)? Seems extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this isn't stolen jewelry.  This is an extremely dangerous weapon now in the hands of a criminal.  Now this guys neighbors and community are potentially in danger.  Should the gun owner get a fine for the damage done to the community by arming a criminal?  Maybe gun owners should have to insure guns with a sum going to local gov if gun is stolen.  Owning a gun is a big responsibility.  If someone isn't up for it they shouldn't own one.
Click to expand...


Well what is more important than a child? So if a child is abducted, the parent or guardian should be charged with a crime? 

And not getting raped is pretty damn important. So if a woman "allows" herself to be raped, she should be charged with a crime? 

Yeah, it's always good to go after the _victim_ of a crime...


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well isn't the important question what percent of criminals are being armed by stolen weapons?  Why are we even looking at the total number of guns?  There certainly aren't 300 million armed criminals.  And we have to remember this is a per year number.  After 10 years that is approximately 2.3 milion stolen guns.  I quick search is telling me there are like 1.4 million gang members in the US.  So that's enough guns for each of them plus plenty extra.
Click to expand...


Yes, I completely agree with you that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, it is important to look at the statistics because it's a measure of the problem. So the question becomes, how many freedoms do you want to trample and how much money do you want to spend on a *0.077%* (or less than half of 1%) problem?


----------



## P@triot

Brain357 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are even a billion guns in the world.  How are they providing billions of them?  I think you greatly underestimate what we could do.  Take machine guns.  Our laws regarding machine guns seem to be working quite well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say billions of guns - I said billions of guns, cocaine, heroin, sex-slaves, etc.
> 
> Let me ask you a serious question: how are our laws against cocaine working out? Against marijuana? Against heroin (I presume you've seen the news regarding Philip Seymour Hoffman)? I could literally go on all day. Show me something banned or illegal and I'll show you an abundance of it.
> 
> What we need to do is come down harder on criminals. Much harder. Armed robbery will generally get you five years of comfortable housing, 3 squares a day, cable tv, personal basketball court, and a phenomenal weight room.
> 
> How about we make armed robbery a life sentence, with _one_ meal per day, no tv (ever), no basketball courts or weight rooms, and you never leave your cell? And you make sure the laws are well publicized.
> 
> That would be exponentially more effective than any law against guns. But liberals would rather defend the criminals and attack the inanimate object. That's because the liberal powers need the criminals and they need to disarm the law abiding citizen (like everything else, if you have to solely rely on government for your security, that increases the chances that you'll vote for big government - and the liberal masters will get the power they so desperately crave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think drug laws are completely different.  The only victim of drugs is the person taking them.  People aren't using drugs to kill other innocent people.
Click to expand...


That's not the issue though. You're trying to use the old "slight of hand" here. I never said drugs create other victims or are used to kill innocent people. And that's not an answer for the real question. The question is - how are our laws against heroin working out? The stuff is rampant. Literally rampant. You cannot enter a community - no matter how rural and not find heroin readily available. Even the Amish have heroin rampant in their community.

So why do I bring that up? Because it _proves_ that you can never regulate guns out of the hands of criminals. And why? Because a criminal doesn't follow the law (that's what makes he/she a criminal).

The answer is simple, clear, and proven. Arm people. There has never been a criminal (insane or otherwise) who was looking for a "fair" fight. Adam Lanza went to Newtown because he knew it would be a slaughter where he could play unopposed "god". There's a reason he didn't go to the local police headquarters and attempt the same thing.



Brain357 said:


> Well you won't find me defending criminals.  But I think we need to look at why there are so many criminals.  I mean our jails are so full compared to other countries for a reason.  Now personally I think it has a lot to do with inequality, but being a righty I'm sure you'll deny that even exists.  But for those who commit the most horrible of crimes I say get rid of and for others it better not be like a resort.



That's beyond insane and you know it. This is akin to saying that fat ugly men should be allowed to rape women because there is an "inequality" in their ability to have consensual sex as opposed to thin, attractive men.

Furthermore, there is no "inequality" and there never has been. Well, at least not until Dumbocrats got government involved and made sure that only certain businesses (like Solyndra) and certain people (like the parasite class) receives tons of money and favors in exchange for votes to gain and/or retain power.

Nobody commits crime because of "inequality". They commit crimes because they are sociopaths with no conscience and because we have a "justice" system which encourages crime. It's a system where the criminal has all of the rights. It's a system designed _by_ the criminal, _for_ the criminal.



Brain357 said:


> Look I'm not trying to take guns away from everybody.  But as long as we can't seem to do anything about criminals and crazies I'd just assume do what we can to keep them away from guns.



I never accused you of that. I'm simply saying what every other rational person on this thread has said - "*what is your plan*"? So far, not one liberal has been able to provide a practical plan.

Want to know why? Because the only plan that actually works - increasing armed law abiding citizens - is in direct conflict with their irrational ideology.


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really - your math is a bit faulty. the 232,000 figure represents guns that are 100% owned by criminals (they stole them - so that's obvious) the 300,000,000 figure (i'll stipulate to that number) includes law-abiding citizens. So if we are only concerned with getting guns out of the hands of criminals - and not worried about taking them from law abiding citizens - then the 232,000 is a much higher percentage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing "faulty" is your "logic". How can you ever get a "much higher percentage" over what the actual percentage is?
> 
> 232,000 out of 300,000,000 is in fact 0.077% not matter how you look at it.
> 
> The issue (which you are apparently completely incapable of following) is preventing 232,000 guns per year out of the hands of criminals. Those 232,000 are alleged to be derived from the 300,000,000 law abiding gun owners. In reality, many of those stolen guns are stolen from other criminals - so in fact, if anything, the percentage is much smaller. But I digress. It doesn't change the fact that you can't get (and I quote) "a much higher percentage" when taking 232,000 out of 300,000,000. It is 0.077% (or considerably less than half of 1%) no matter how you slice it, junior...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flooding the territory with guns and then pointing at some seemingly low statistic is the number 2 strawman argument of the NRA. Rottweenie is just a parrot.
> And the number 1 strawman argument of the NRA is: GUN GRABBERS ARE COMING TO GET YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Hey _stupid_, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.

ANd as far as "strawman" - Chicago, Washington D.C., New York, and many other cities have actually _banned_ guns. The Supreme Court already over turned Chicago and Washington D.C. So in your uninformed and immature mind, it is "strawman" to cite reality? It is "strawman" to cite what has actually occurred? 

You know when a Dumbocrat has been thoroughly defeated when they scream one of two things: racist! or strawman!


----------



## P@triot

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think that they are just trying to do something about all the gun violence in the US. The NRA just wants to arm more people to make the US safer. Just 2 completely different viewpoints, like abortion debate, the civil war... Merkans like to polarize a debate and then fight it out. Pretty messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are more pressing issues impacting *ALL* Americans where the energy should be focused
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bof, I think it's possible to something if the will of the people is there. I find it really messed up that the NRA folks don't even want to try ANYTHING except arm more people, and they actually get taken seriously. It makes no fucking sense.
Click to expand...


See how _stupid_ Dumbocrats are? To them, "it makes no fucking sense" that where ever guns are prevalent (police stations, around the president, NRA meetings, etc.) there are no "incidents" and peace reigns, while wherever they ban guns (Chicago, Washington D.C., schools), bloodbaths and slaughters reign.

Furthermore, _stupid_, the "will of the people" is more firearms (because they are a lot brighter than you Dumbocrats). Look at the numbers junior (you're in the extreme ignorant minority who are too blinded by partisan ideology and too brainwashed by irrational fear of an inanimate object)....

Gallup has been asking Americans since 1959: Do you think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

1959: 60 percent
1965: 49 percent
1975: 41 percent
1988: 37 percent
1999: 34 percent
2006: 32 percent
2009: 28 percent
2012: 24 percent

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. Control. Threshold Editions. iBooks. 
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11


----------



## ClosedCaption

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
Click to expand...


I said this on page 1.  More than 100 pages later this is prophetic


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said this on page 1.  More than 100 pages later this is prophetic
Click to expand...


You are spewing gibberish again.

My solution is to allow people to arm and defend themselves because you can't stop criminals from having guns.

Liberals solution is to pass gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves and do nothing to disarm criminals.

The word for seeing those as "something in common" would not be "prophetic," it would just be a general lack of comprehension.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.



What you did was expose your ignorance.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does that stat make to the OP's question?  So a small percentage of guns are stolen instead of bought.  That doesn't change the equation except like everything else criminals steal, they save a few dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns?   And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns?  It's stealing them or they won't be armed?  Seriously?
Click to expand...


He doesn't know that people can manufacture their own firearms.  guess he's never heard of a zip gun.  Improvised firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we are discussing keeping guns from criminals, then 232,000 stolen guns each year is kind of a big deal.  Do you think criminals have a bigger source of guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to keep guns away from criminals, we have to stop them from stealing guns?   And you can't think of any other way that criminals could get guns?  It's stealing them or they won't be armed?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't know that people can manufacture their own firearms.  guess he's never heard of a zip gun.  Improvised firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


It's also his party who demand we allow anyone who wants to walk freely across our borders carrying anything they want.  Yet they don't grasp "anyone" includes criminals and "anything" includes guns.  Just like happens with drugs now.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Yes, I completely agree with you that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, it is important to look at the statistics because it's a measure of the problem. So the question becomes, how many freedoms do you want to trample and how much money do you want to spend on a 0.077% (or less than half of 1%) problem?



the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).

And not a single provision I've tossed out for consideration has any impact at all on the law adiding citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to own a gun.

The false dichotomy that we have to leave the criminals alone so that we don't vicitimize law-abiding citizens is pure horseshit. If it weren't, folks wouldn't have to commit logical fallacies in order to claim it.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> Yes, I completely agree with you that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, it is important to look at the statistics because it's a measure of the problem. So the question becomes, how many freedoms do you want to trample and how much money do you want to spend on a 0.077% (or less than half of 1%) problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).
> 
> And not a single provision I've tossed out for consideration has any impact at all on the law adiding citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to own a gun.
> 
> The false dichotomy that we have to leave the criminals alone so that we don't vicitimize law-abiding citizens is pure horseshit. If it weren't, folks wouldn't have to commit logical fallacies in order to claim it.
Click to expand...


As the OP, you're completely mis-portraying my argument on multiple levels.

1) I did not say that only stolen guns in the hands of criminals is bad, I said all guns in the hands of criminals is bad.  When you say that I am not against abiding citizens owning guns, that's true.  But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true because those aren't the only guns criminals possess.

2) Dealing with the current guns that criminals have is missing that I am saying that even if we were able to at a particular moment take every gun from every criminal, they would find ways to get more, and very quickly, and we would have what we have now again.  Just like drugs constantly flow into the country.  So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.

3)  You're not addressing the whole theme that I am pointing out that gun laws only affect people who follow laws.  Think about it.   Of course I'm good with going after criminals who have guns, but your solution of going after honest citizens who are crime victims to do it is directly contradictory to my point.


----------



## P@triot

nodoginnafight said:


> Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you did was expose your ignorance.
Click to expand...


What I did was expose your irrational response and inability to do basic math (hence the reason you can't dispute what I said )


----------



## nodoginnafight

> When you say that I am not against abiding citizens owning guns, that's true.


I didn't say that about you - that's the position I have been arguing from the begining.



> But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true



I never said they were. In fact - I said "We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible)."



> So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.



All of my suggestions have been geared to preventing criminals from getting guns NOT taking the ones they already have.



> You're not addressing the whole theme that I am pointing out that gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Think about it. Of course I'm good with going after criminals who have guns, but your solution of going after honest citizens who are crime victims to do it is directly contradictory to my point.



MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)


----------



## nodoginnafight

Rottweiler said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, how am I a "parrot" when I didn't even bring up the statistics? I simply pointed out NDIAF's irrational response and inability to do basic math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you did was expose your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I did was expose your irrational response and inability to do basic math (hence the reason you can't dispute what I said )
Click to expand...


I already have - twice. If you're too stupid to know it - that's you're problem not mine. Have a great day.


----------



## P@triot

nodoginnafight said:


> Yes, I completely agree with you that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, it is important to look at the statistics because it's a measure of the problem. So the question becomes, how many freedoms do you want to trample and how much money do you want to spend on a 0.077% (or less than half of 1%) problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).
> 
> And not a single provision I've tossed out for consideration has any impact at all on the law adiding citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to own a gun.
> 
> The false dichotomy that we have to leave the criminals alone so that we don't vicitimize law-abiding citizens is pure horseshit. If it weren't, folks wouldn't have to commit logical fallacies in order to claim it.
Click to expand...


Yes - but that "100%" you're focused on is the result of 0.077% (because that's how many guns are stolen chief).

Furthermore, where did I ever say "leave criminals alone" genius? As far as I'm concerned, you can kill them. No, I mean _literally_ kill them. I find criminals fuck'n deplorable and a plague on humanity. So go fuck'n kill them. I'll support you 100% (of course, we both know as a liberal you're too lazy to get out of your recliner to actually make any positive impact on this world - but should the day come where you're lazy ass actually does rise out of that recliner and you actually do go eliminate criminals, I'll defend you to the ends of the universe and beyond).

But so far, you've offered NO plan (as usual from the left) other than "lets fuck over law abiding citizens to appease our irrational fears of an inanimate object which we are completely unfamiliar with".


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said this on page 1.  More than 100 pages later this is prophetic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are spewing gibberish again.
> 
> *My solution is to allow people to arm and defend themselves because you can't stop criminals from having guns.*
> 
> Liberals solution is to pass gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves and do nothing to disarm criminals.
> 
> The word for seeing those as "something in common" would not be "prophetic," it would just be a general lack of comprehension.
Click to expand...


Since we do that already your answer is do nothing like I said


----------



## nodoginnafight

Feel better Rottweiler? After creating a figment of your imagination to argue with? and inventing statements never made to argue with?

If that's all you got - why don't you get back to your homework and let the big people talk?


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said this on page 1.  More than 100 pages later this is prophetic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are spewing gibberish again.
> 
> *My solution is to allow people to arm and defend themselves because you can't stop criminals from having guns.*
> 
> Liberals solution is to pass gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves and do nothing to disarm criminals.
> 
> The word for seeing those as "something in common" would not be "prophetic," it would just be a general lack of comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we do that already your answer is do nothing like I said
Click to expand...


Try to follow a simple point.  Simple is your native language as you are a Simpleton, so you should be able to do that.

Yes, MY solution is to do nothing.  To allow people to defend themselves.  That isn't the liberal solution.  The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.

You said my solution was like the liberal solution.  It isn't, not in any way.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)



Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless.  If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions.  I am not really getting what you are getting at here.  Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?


----------



## ClosedCaption

So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1.  If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all.  I think you just insulted yourself.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1.  If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all.  I think you just insulted yourself.



I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have.  You don't know the difference between my view of allowing honest citizens to arm themselves to counter armed criminals and liberals wanting to disarm honest citizens while leaving criminals armed.  We know you don't now the difference because you keep saying I "agree with the point" you made at the beginning of the discussion.


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't...
> 
> You say that liberals don't have an answer.  Your answer to gun violence?  Do nothing.
> 
> So you and liberals both have something in common
Click to expand...


The post in question.  My solution is not to "do nothing," it's to remove our idiotic gun laws that keep getting honest people killed.

I also support keeping criminals in prison and catching them with guns so we can send them back to prisons.  I also support stricter sentencing and eliminating parole for violent crimes.  None of that is "nothing" other than the simplistic word game you want to play.  But then, Simple is your language, Simpleton.


----------



## kaz

Test to show you are not an idiot.  Can you answer these questions coherently?  I'm not asking you to even be right, only to give a coherent response.

1)  Let's accept your word parsing that I propose we do "nothing."  If any course you take is worse than doing "nothing," (the point from the OP) what path should you logically follow?

2)  Why would everything you think need to result in legislation?  If you are against parents giving their kids ice cream for dinner, are the alternatives government banning it or doing "nothing?"  What about your taking personal responsibility to support a charity that spreads nutrition and health information instead of running to a congressman?


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not as much as putting a fingerprint scanner on a gun so that stolen guns wouldn't even work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] seriously need to take a logic class.  OK, once again.   Changing HOW you make guns "illegal" doesn't even logically address the point.
> 
> The OP's point is, banning guns doesn't work for criminals, gun laws only work for honest citizens.  So you are disarming honest citizens, not criminals.
> 
> CandyCorn says if you drive up the price of guns with taxes rather than banning them, it will work.  Price is just another method of making guns "illegal."  Criminals will just go buy illegal guns.  She didn't change the premise, she only changed the method of making them "illegal."  The question of what you do about criminals getting illegal guns is unaddressed.
> 
> You are doing the same thing.  You are driving up the price of guns through technology, which will clearly impact gun ownership.  And that will affect, again, LEGAL gun owners.  Criminals will just turn again to illegal guns, you did not address the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only the fingerprint scanner, but make new guns with slightly bigger barrels that would need bigger bullets. Once the bullets in circulation are all shot, the new bullets won't fit the old guns. Check. And mate.
Click to expand...


Um, what if I melt the big bullets down and re-cast in the older smaller calibers?  

I can wait

-Geaux


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1.  If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all.  I think you just insulted yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have.*  .
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> *Yes, MY solution is to do nothing.  *To allow people to defend themselves.  That isn't the liberal solution.  The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.



Yes, yes you did.  It only took you 200 pages to realize it.  What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it?   Whatever it is, thats you


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> So after 200 pages you call ne a mpleton and agree with the point I made on page 1.  If I'm a simpleton and you agree with me a month later that doesn't make you look good at all.  I think you just insulted yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have.*  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, MY solution is to do nothing.  *To allow people to defend themselves.  That isn't the liberal solution.  The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you did.  It only took you 200 pages to realize it.  What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it?   Whatever it is, thats you
Click to expand...


I suppose you are using your limited intelligence to the full extent of your ability.  Really, that is all anyone can ask.


----------



## Brain357

nodoginnafight said:


> When you say that I am not against abiding citizens owning guns, that's true.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that about you - that's the position I have been arguing from the begining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they were. In fact - I said "We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of my suggestions have been geared to preventing criminals from getting guns NOT taking the ones they already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not addressing the whole theme that I am pointing out that gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Think about it. Of course I'm good with going after criminals who have guns, but your solution of going after honest citizens who are crime victims to do it is directly contradictory to my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)
Click to expand...


Sound like fair proposals to me.  Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands.  Not really sure why anyone would be against this.  The third part is a little tricky.  I think you have to put in laws stating a gun either has to be on your person or stored in a safe.  And I think you've stated it before, but all guns need to be registered.  

Of course I'd also limit magazine capacity so less damage is done when a criminal gets a gun.  There are many examples of shooters being stopped while or right after a reload.  Take the bar example that was given on this thread for instance.  And stats show defense only requires 2-3 shots.  So it's a win for anyone trying to defend themselves.

And I would lock down the border.  I have no doubt bad people and things are sneaking in over that border.  And given our economy we sure don't need extra workers driving down wages and unemployment up.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Answer to the OP's question:

Reduce the number of criminals.


----------



## ClosedCaption

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't agree with what you said on page 1, I never have.*  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, MY solution is to do nothing.  *To allow people to defend themselves.  That isn't the liberal solution.  The liberal solution is to enact endless gun laws that only affect honest citizens and do not affect criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you did.  It only took you 200 pages to realize it.  What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it?   Whatever it is, thats you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you are using your limited intelligence to the full extent of your ability.  Really, that is all anyone can ask.
Click to expand...


Thanks too bad you cant keep up.  Maybe it'll take another 200 pages for you to realize it.  Idiot


----------



## kaz

ClosedCaption said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you did.  It only took you 200 pages to realize it.  What do you call someone who agrees with a simpleton but it took them 200 pages to realize it?   Whatever it is, thats you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you are using your limited intelligence to the full extent of your ability.  Really, that is all anyone can ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks too bad you cant keep up.  Maybe it'll take another 200 pages for you to realize it.  Idiot
Click to expand...


I'll just give you and example that you can fail to grasp like you fail to grasp everything else.  The Washington Navy Yard.  On a freaking military base, there was one armed guard.  How many of the people in a ... military base ... do you suppose owned and knew how to use guns?  So let's analyze.

Liberal system)  It was illegal for everyone to have a gun there but the guard.  The shooter ignored the law (gasp, who saw that coming?).  The victims followed the law.  The shooter took out the one armed guard then started shooting military people who owned and knew how to use guns but didn't have them because it was the law.  They were murdered by the DC government and Slick Clinton so we could feel good about laws keeping guns from criminals.  You know, like the one that was killing them.  The shooter got to shoot until the situation was recognized and outside help was called in and people allowed to have guns came with guns to stop him.

My system)  The military people who owned guns would have had them.  The shooter knowing that probably wouldn't have done what he did.  If he did, there would have been immediate return fire and most of the people who died wouldn't have died.

There aren't enough pages where I'm going to realize that my plan is the same as the liberal's plan.  And you don't have enough intelligence to recognize that it isn't.   So I think this is the permanent state.


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> Answer to the OP's question:
> 
> Reduce the number of criminals.



Can you maybe fill in a few details?  How are you planning to do that?


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands.  Not really sure why anyone would be against this



Strawman, no one is against this.  This is how liberals argue.  It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves.  Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you.  But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.


----------



## LoneLaugher

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to the OP's question:
> 
> Reduce the number of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you maybe fill in a few details?  How are you planning to do that?
Click to expand...


Sure. 

Start with free and easy access to sex education and contraceptives. 
Then, fund education programs for expectant mothers and fathers. You know, parenting skills.....shit like that. 
Then, make sure that every kid is well fed at all times regardless of parents ability to provide. 
Then, fund education from all fronts. Facilities, technology, teachers ( free college and greater salaries ), post secondary education opportunities. 
We can also legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs. 

Need more?


----------



## kaz

I'm not sure why you took my name out of the quotes, but with all the traffic I missed this until the great brain quoted you.



nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you say the stolen guns are 100% of the problem, that's not true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were. In fact - I said "We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible)."
Click to expand...


Actually you said exactly that, that all guns in the hands of criminals were stolen.  Let's go to the video tape.  You said that we are talking about guns in the hands of criminals (true) and that those are 100% of the problem (not true).  If you misspoke, that's fine, we all do it.  But you cannot deny that's what you said.  I was talking about all guns in the hands of criminals, I said nothing about the stolen ones, you brought that up.  And you said stolen guns are "100% of the problem."  One hundred percent of the problem would be all guns in the hands of all criminals, not just the stolen ones.  So if stolen guns are 100% of the problem, then you are saying 100% of guns in the hands of criminals are stolen.



nodoginnafight said:


> the 0.077 is 100% of the problem I (and the original poster) are talking about. We are not talking about how to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens - so the 300,000,000 figure is pointless. We are talking about getting guns out of the hands of the 232,000 that we know stole them. (and as many other criminals as possible).





nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to deal with one particular way they get them now is irrelevant unless you can show what would stop them from simply re-arming other ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of my suggestions have been geared to preventing criminals from getting guns NOT taking the ones they already have.
Click to expand...


What you have not addressed are the myriad of laws that do keep guns out of the laws of honest citizens.  Are you going to eliminate those?  I'll agree to the deal of doing that and replacing them with just your meaningless and ineffective steps.  If you aren't going to dismantle the current laws, your plan is still to disarm honest citizens and do nothing about criminals since that's what we are doing now and you'd still be doing the same.


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer to the OP's question:
> 
> Reduce the number of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you maybe fill in a few details?  How are you planning to do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Start with free and easy access to sex education and contraceptives.
> Then, fund education programs for expectant mothers and fathers. You know, parenting skills.....shit like that.
> Then, make sure that every kid is well fed at all times regardless of parents ability to provide.
> Then, fund education from all fronts. Facilities, technology, teachers ( free college and greater salaries ), post secondary education opportunities.
> We can also legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs.
> 
> Need more?
Click to expand...


The one relevant proposal you have is to address the war on drugs.  Though by not ending it you only have a marginal impact on it.  Other than that, you want to use this to peddle socialism.

As for the socialism side, what people need, Homey, is not more government, they need more jobs.  And they get those by ending the idiotic minimum wage that prevents inner city teens from getting a job and unencumbering our economy with the endless taxes and regulations that hold it down.  And government schools are certainly not the answer to a better educated population.  And as for the actual thread, you have no plan at all.


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands.  Not really sure why anyone would be against this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, no one is against this.  This is how liberals argue.  It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves.  Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you.  But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.
Click to expand...


*Strawman,*

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court

On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all. 

At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a straw man doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.

In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.

The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless.  If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions.  I am not really getting what you are getting at here.  Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?
Click to expand...


Got an answer, Dawg?  I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen.  Explain how that is on me.


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep them in law abiding citizens hands.  Not really sure why anyone would be against this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, no one is against this.  This is how liberals argue.  It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves.  Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you.  But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Strawman,*
> 
> The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court
> 
> On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.
> 
> At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a straw man doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.
> 
> In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.
> 
> The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court
Click to expand...


I just wanted to be sure you realize I was referring to that his argument was a strawman, I wasn't talking about straw man gun sales.


----------



## hazlnut

Rottweiler said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are supposed to be about funding government, not forcing people to follow your precious little social policies or pay a fine.
> 
> We have lost sight of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior*.
> 
> When you say "your" precious little social polices.  You mean "our".  You have a vote.  The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets.  And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.
> 
> We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.
> 
> The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.
> 
> As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine.  However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?
> 
> Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always fascinating when Dumbocrats have an accidental moment of honesty.
> 
> Think about just how fuck'n sick that statement is. We all know that taxes are intended for one purpose and one purpose only: to run the Constitutional responsibilities of government.
> 
> But a liberal looks at it (like everything else) as a way to control others and as a way to punish.
> 
> Which is what makes it all the more hilarious when they claim that raising taxes doesn't effect employment. Wait a second - you just admitted that it's a way to punish. That means you clearly realize that taxes have a tremendous negative impact.
> 
> Oops! Looks like [MENTION=39768]hazlnut[/MENTION] just fucked up and forgot - in his web of lives - what his previous narrative was. He just got caught contradicting himself. Buh-bye credibility!
Click to expand...



Looks like you're stuck on my web of *lives*


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman, no one is against this.  This is how liberals argue.  It's why no one takes you seriously but yourselves.  Unfortunately you breed like rabbits so there are a whole lot of you.  But this is just a butt stupid statement that contradicts nothing anyone said in this or any other thread about guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Strawman,*
> 
> The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court
> 
> On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.
> 
> At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a straw man doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.
> 
> In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.
> 
> The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just wanted to be sure you realize I was referring to that his argument was a strawman, I wasn't talking about straw man gun sales.
Click to expand...


yes 

i just wanted to post the SC hearing 

thanks 

i am looking forward to see the opinion


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Strawman,*
> 
> The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court
> 
> On Wednesday the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in Abramski v. United States, a case that, except for a miscarriage of justice, probably wouldn't have been heard at all.
> 
> At issue is whether Congress intended to have the Gun Control Act of 1968 keep guns out of the hands of criminals through requiring background checks of individuals purchasing guns, but not allow law-abiding individuals to purchase guns for someone else. It was a loophole in the law that various courts tried to plug by creating a straw man doctrine, which was later codified into law. In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) modified its Form 4473 to say that such straw man purchases were illegal on their face and wouldn't be permitted.
> 
> In a strange case that grew out of an illegal search, a former law-enforcement officer, Bruce Abramski, was found to have purchased a Glock 19 for his uncle, taking advantage of a discount offered by gun dealers to active and former law-enforcement officers.
> 
> The Validity of "Straw Man" Gun Sales Goes to Supreme Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to be sure you realize I was referring to that his argument was a strawman, I wasn't talking about straw man gun sales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> i just wanted to post the SC hearing
> 
> thanks
> 
> i am looking forward to see the opinion
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you're arguing here exactly, Jon.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY proposals have been aimed at 1) background checks for all gun purchases (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens; 2) choking out shadow buyers (nothing to do with "going after" honest citizens) and 3) holding gun owners accountable for taking reasonable measures to secure their firearm. (That could be construed as going after honest citizens I guess, but if someone is incredibly careless to the point of reckless in their failure to secure their firearm - then they're probably too stupid to go around armed themselves.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless.  If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions.  I am not really getting what you are getting at here.  Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got an answer, Dawg?  I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen.  Explain how that is on me.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal tactic.  Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!


----------



## kaz

hazlnut said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In economics you learn that taxes are also about incentivizing desired behavior*.
> 
> When you say "your" precious little social polices.  You mean "our".  You have a vote.  The tradition of safety nets grew out of the Great Depression -- Americans can not abide families and old people dying in the streets.  And the notion that if you float people during a recession or transitional period, a certain percentage will find work.
> 
> We are a compassionate nation and, to some degree, believe that care for the sick and poor who can not care for themselves is a good thing for our national character.
> 
> The greatest thing about this country is if you just can't stand these traditions, then you are free to leave.
> 
> As far as pay a fine, if young people want to carry around a DNR order on their arm band or in their wallet -- saying if I get into a horrific accident, let me die -- then they don't have to pay the ACA fine.  However, who's going to scrape their bodies off the streets?
> 
> Who are these people who don't think they have to have health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always fascinating when Dumbocrats have an accidental moment of honesty.
> 
> Think about just how fuck'n sick that statement is. We all know that taxes are intended for one purpose and one purpose only: to run the Constitutional responsibilities of government.
> 
> But a liberal looks at it (like everything else) as a way to control others and as a way to punish.
> 
> Which is what makes it all the more hilarious when they claim that raising taxes doesn't effect employment. Wait a second - you just admitted that it's a way to punish. That means you clearly realize that taxes have a tremendous negative impact.
> 
> Oops! Looks like [MENTION=39768]hazlnut[/MENTION] just fucked up and forgot - in his web of lives - what his previous narrative was. He just got caught contradicting himself. Buh-bye credibility!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you're stuck on my web of *lives*&#8230;
Click to expand...


Using taxes to force the economy to serve the interest of government is sick.  That's why we should have a flat tax or better yet, the Fair Tax.  Then the market is driven by efficiency.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you maybe fill in a few details?  How are you planning to do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Start with free and easy access to sex education and contraceptives.
> Then, fund education programs for expectant mothers and fathers. You know, parenting skills.....shit like that.
> Then, make sure that every kid is well fed at all times regardless of parents ability to provide.
> Then, fund education from all fronts. Facilities, technology, teachers ( free college and greater salaries ), post secondary education opportunities.
> We can also legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs.
> 
> Need more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one relevant proposal you have is to address the war on drugs.  Though by not ending it you only have a marginal impact on it.  Other than that, you want to use this to peddle socialism.
> 
> As for the socialism side, what people need, Homey, is not more government, they need more jobs.  And they get those by ending the idiotic minimum wage that prevents inner city teens from getting a job and unencumbering our economy with the endless taxes and regulations that hold it down.  And government schools are certainly not the answer to a better educated population.  And as for the actual thread, you have no plan at all.
Click to expand...


Unemployment among inner city teens is 50%, which is just sick.  Who needs a job to end the cycle of poverty more than they do?

Yet liberals get on your high horse and trumpet your battle plans, but when you're presented with the carnage you created along the way, you bail.  It's not your problem.  What you did.


----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being "careless" opens government to so much power to interpret what is and what isn't careless.  If you have your gun inside your own home on your own property, that already is taking reasonable precautions.  I am not really getting what you are getting at here.  Are you talking about people leaving their gun on a park bench?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got an answer, Dawg?  I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen.  Explain how that is on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
> 
> Brave Sir Robin ran away.
> Bravely ran away, away!
> When danger reared its ugly head,
> He bravely turned his tail and fled.
> Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
> And gallantly he chickened out.
> Bravely taking to his feet
> He beat a very brave retreat,
> Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
Click to expand...


LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.

In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got an answer, Dawg?  I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen.  Explain how that is on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
> 
> Brave Sir Robin ran away.
> Bravely ran away, away!
> When danger reared its ugly head,
> He bravely turned his tail and fled.
> Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
> And gallantly he chickened out.
> Bravely taking to his feet
> He beat a very brave retreat,
> Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
> Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.
> 
> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
Click to expand...


Your topic is stolen guns.  If someone's gun is in their own home, explain how that can be "gross negligence" if someone breaks in and steals it.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
> 
> Brave Sir Robin ran away.
> Bravely ran away, away!
> When danger reared its ugly head,
> He bravely turned his tail and fled.
> Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
> And gallantly he chickened out.
> Bravely taking to his feet
> He beat a very brave retreat,
> Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
> Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.
> 
> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your topic is stolen guns.  If someone's gun is in their own home, explain how that can be "gross negligence" if someone breaks in and steals it.
Click to expand...


You're still running away.  Look man, you keep saying guns are stolen because owners are negligent and they should be held accountable.   My question is straight to that.  How can it be negligence if someone breaks in your home and steals your gun?

Sure, if a kid finds your gun, you could have been negligent, but your statement I am questioning is not about general negligence, it's your claim that guns are stolen out of negligence.  What say you?  Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## hunarcy

nodoginnafight said:


> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).



Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness.  Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.


----------



## nodoginnafight

hunarcy said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness.  Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
Click to expand...


It could apply.

For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.

Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.

Example 2: You  leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.

Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record  or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness.  Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could apply.
> 
> For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
> 
> Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
> 
> Example 2: You  leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
> 
> Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record  or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
Click to expand...


So out of the 230K guns that are stolen that you're lamenting, you've just covered maybe 127 of them.  How is that going to make any difference in a country of 300 million people?


----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness.  Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could apply.
> 
> For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
> 
> Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
> 
> Example 2: You  leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
> 
> Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record  or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So out of the 230K guns that are stolen that you're lamenting, you've just covered maybe 127 of them.  How is that going to make any difference in a country of 300 million people?
Click to expand...


Where do you get those figures?

Got any problems with holding reckless gun owners like those I've mentioned above accountable for their carelessness?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?


----------



## nodoginnafight

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?



1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.

2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.

I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.


----------



## hunarcy

nodoginnafight said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
> 
> 2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
> 
> I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
Click to expand...


No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
> 
> 2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
> 
> I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
Click to expand...


Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?

Hmm ... me neither ...


----------



## Geaux4it

I pity the poor civil servants who ultimately will have to go door to door if they want the guns. 

-Geaux


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Making me responsible for the criminal conduct of others is not legal. Further it is a direct infringement on the right to keep possess and carry firearms. There is no compelling State interest in punishing the law abiding for someone elses criminal behavior.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> I pity the poor civil servants who ultimately will have to go door to door if they want the guns.
> 
> -Geaux



*I pity the poor civil servants who ultimately will have to go door to door if they want the guns*. 

in Connecticut only about 15 percent of the persons required 

to register their "assault weapons" by Dec 31st did so


----------



## bonehead

Missourian said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
> 
> If they did,  this would be the route they would choose.
> 
> But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison,  this isn't fair."
> 
> Pretty much the same thing they say today.
> 
> The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
> 
> They don't want to own a gun,  and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
> 
> That's the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.  There is only one way to skin a cat.  Yep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many ways do you need?
> 
> The objective is a skinned cat...right?
> 
> You want to reduce gun crime...it's an epidemic...well then the solution is to skin the motherfucking cat,  not find 35 unique ways of doing it!
> 
> Put these criminals under the jail until just being in jail looks as good as freedom...and if you find a better way down the road,  we'll institute that.
Click to expand...

I kinda like that idea, but why send them to prison in the U.S. strip them of their citizenship and deport them to Somalia. the air fare would be a lot cheaper than supporting them here.


----------



## hunarcy

Missourian said:


> The gun grabbers don't actually care about criminals using guns.
> 
> If they did,  this would be the route they would choose.
> 
> But instead they would say "Look at all these black people in prison,  this isn't fair."
> 
> Pretty much the same thing they say today.
> 
> The gun grabbers don't trust LEGAL gun owners with guns.
> 
> They don't want to own a gun,  and they don't want anyone else to own one either.
> 
> That's the bottom line.



I have come to the conclusion that you're right and their attacks based on gun crimes is really just a dishonest tactic that's designed to disarm our population.  That's why I no longer listen to what they consider "common sense gun law" proposals.


----------



## nodoginnafight

hunarcy said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not required by law to lock my car my house or hide my possessions because someone may rob me. You do realize that is what you are requiring? that the private citizen be so worried about criminal charges that they act in fear of the Government that some criminal may rob them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
> 
> 2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
> 
> I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
Click to expand...


Do what???
If you stole a gun - you have engaged in criminal behavior. Period.


----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
> 
> 2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
> 
> I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?
> 
> Hmm ... me neither ...
Click to expand...


Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges

Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?
> 
> Hmm ... me neither ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges
Click to expand...


Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse.  Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole?  How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?



nodoginnafight said:


> Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?



Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals?  For the tan?


----------



## hunarcy

nodoginnafight said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I never said criminal charges. Civil liability is what I favor.
> 
> 2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon.
> 
> I cannot imagine that any responsible gun owner would find these provisions onerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do what???
> If you stole a gun - you have engaged in criminal behavior. Period.
Click to expand...


Nice of you to provide evidence that you're not interested in an honest discussion but instead are just throwing up crap.  The FACT is that your specious examples are silly, your argument vacuous and your position is flat wrong.

You may go.  You've used up your 15 minutes.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> 2) I am asking that gun owners be responsible gun owners. I'm asking that they take reasonable precautions to secure their weapon



And again, how is having their gun on their own property not taking "reasonable precautions to secure their weapon?"


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?
> 
> Hmm ... me neither ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse.  Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole?  How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals?  For the tan?
Click to expand...


Now that he's shown he really has no argument, I'm not bothering with him anymore.


----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think if someone leaves their gun in their car and it's stolen, the real criminal was the gun owner?
> 
> Hmm ... me neither ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse.  Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole?  How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals?  For the tan?
Click to expand...


I've know it for quite some time - thanks for admitting it.
I'm bored with "arguing" with someone who really doesn't have a point other than to mislabel people people and pick fights.

Have a great day.

NOW you can sing your "Sir Robin" song If it'll make you feel like you've accomplished something.


----------



## nodoginnafight

hunarcy said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you created the most specious examples and implied that such behavior is common.  They are ridiculous examples, yet even then are not dangerous unless a CRIMINAL engages in criminal behavior.  So, while you are trying to marginalize legal gun owners, you illustrate that the real problem is crime and the ineffective response to criminals that our plagues our society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do what???
> If you stole a gun - you have engaged in criminal behavior. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice of you to provide evidence that you're not interested in an honest discussion but instead are just throwing up crap.  The FACT is that your specious examples are silly, your argument vacuous and your position is flat wrong.
> 
> You may go.  You've used up your 15 minutes.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't understand what you were trying to say with your first post. 
1) I never implied anything about the frequency of the behaviors cited. Unilke others in this  thread (kaz) I don't just pull numbers out of my butt and try to use them to make an argument.

2) The thread topic (which apparently I am the only one capable of remembering) is "How to keep guns from criminals"  I guess getting your ass kicked on THAT topic led you to try to invent another one???

3) So you can either make arguments against my proposals - or fling crap. I see you chose the latter.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope that's why I said I don't favor criminal charges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection, that you want to drive people broke isn't an excuse.  Same question, why is someone responsible whether it's civil or criminal for a gun they stole?  How is the owner responsible when their gun is stolen from their own property?
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still squirming to find something - anything to fight about huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, why else would be on a political message board arguing with liberals?  For the tan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've know it for quite some time - thanks for admitting it.
> I'm bored with "arguing" with someone who really doesn't have a point other than to mislabel people people and pick fights.
> 
> Have a great day.
> 
> NOW you can sing your "Sir Robin" song If it'll make you feel like you've accomplished something.
Click to expand...


I sang sir robin because

1)  The OP's question is how liberals propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals since gun laws don't accomplish that.

2)  You came back with ignoring every way that criminals can get guns except one, and that's stealing them.  Every other way they get guns you ignored.  And you proposed we hold gun owners who's guns are stolen liable.

3)  When asked how a gun owner is responsible for a gun  stolen from their home, you then whittled it down to a tiny percent of those, like if someone leaves a gun in plain view by a big window.  So of all guns criminals can get, you have reduced it down to holding a tiny portion that were stolen.

I keep asking you how that makes sense, and you don't answer the question.  Calling that that I want to "pick fights" is wrong, I want you to address the question.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> 2) The thread topic (which apparently I am the only one capable of remembering) is "How to keep guns from criminals"  I guess getting your ass kicked on THAT topic led you to try to invent another one???



That's the title, which you're twisting.  The topic, as described in by the OP, is that all current gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of honest citizens, particularly when they need them.  So in that context, how are liberals planning to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Ignoring the context isn't you being the only one who is "remembering" what the thread is about, it's you changing the thread to suit your objective.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Man, oh man, this thread is the gift that keeps on giving!


----------



## Bumberclyde

Stop selling bullets.


----------



## hunarcy

Bumberclyde said:


> Stop selling bullets.



You really should stop posting.  You're doing yourself NO good by bringing up that stupid idea yet again.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bumberclyde said:


> Stop selling bullets.



If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.


----------



## Spoonman

Bumberclyde said:


> Stop selling bullets.



make your own.  its easy


----------



## Spoonman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Making me responsible for the criminal conduct of others is not legal. Further it is a direct infringement on the right to keep possess and carry firearms. There is no compelling State interest in punishing the law abiding for someone elses criminal behavior.


----------



## hunarcy

Spoonman said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making me responsible for the criminal conduct of others is not legal. Further it is a direct infringement on the right to keep possess and carry firearms. There is no compelling State interest in punishing the law abiding for someone elses criminal behavior.
Click to expand...


Good one!


----------



## Spoonman

nodoginnafight said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness.  Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could apply.
> 
> For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
> 
> Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
> 
> Example 2: You  leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
> 
> Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record  or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
Click to expand...


wow that is a wild way of looking at it.  so you have to keep your private property out of the sight of a potential criminal so you don't tempt him to steal it.    so I shouldn't park my Porsche in the driveway?  I shouldn't wear my rolex watch out in public?   what is it with you jokers always making excuses for the criminals?


----------



## Spoonman

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got an answer, Dawg?  I keep my gun in my own home, it's broken into and stolen.  Explain how that is on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  Throw out a factoid that is a red herring and argue it as if you are arguing the point, then when you're called on it, beat a hasty retreat...
> 
> Brave Sir Robin ran away.
> Bravely ran away, away!
> When danger reared its ugly head,
> He bravely turned his tail and fled.
> Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
> And gallantly he chickened out.
> Bravely taking to his feet
> He beat a very brave retreat,
> Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - excuse me for turning off my computer once in a while.
> Really? is that all you got? Then you don't have much.
> 
> In your example - keeping it "in your home" may or may not be enough to avoid a charge of gross neglegence. (Apparently you haven't heard the term gross neglegence before or are painfully unaware of how it is applied in a legal sense).
Click to expand...


yes but gross negligence doesn't apply to you if your property is stolen.   if you leave your door unlocked and someone breaks in, you are not charged with gross negligence.   if someone steals your car and runs someone over, you are not charged with gross negligence.


----------



## Wildman

how the fuck did we get off on this tangent ? 

you liberfools keep detracting from the OP intent. 

just flat out tell us gun owning patriotic law abiding citizens how you are going to keep guns from the law breakers ?

*do that or shut the fuck up forever, stop throwing sinker balls.*


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness.  Unless you can demonstrate that a person is supposed to know their house is going to be robbed, it would not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could apply.
> 
> For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
> 
> Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
> 
> Example 2: You  leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
> 
> Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record  or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow that is a wild way of looking at it.  so you have to keep your private property out of the sight of a potential criminal so you don't tempt him to steal it.    so I shouldn't park my Porsche in the driveway?  I shouldn't wear my rolex watch out in public?   what is it with you jokers always making excuses for the criminals?
Click to expand...


If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right?  Isn't that what nodog is telling us?


----------



## kaz

Wildman said:


> how the fuck did we get off on this tangent ?
> 
> you liberfools keep detracting from the OP intent.
> 
> just flat out tell us gun owning patriotic law abiding citizens how you are going to keep guns from the law breakers ?
> 
> *do that or shut the fuck up forever, stop throwing sinker balls.*



They have no plan, so they offer red herrings.


----------



## Geaux4it

kaz said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> how the fuck did we get off on this tangent ?
> 
> you liberfools keep detracting from the OP intent.
> 
> just flat out tell us gun owning patriotic law abiding citizens how you are going to keep guns from the law breakers ?
> 
> *do that or shut the fuck up forever, stop throwing sinker balls.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have no plan, so they offer red herrings.
Click to expand...


Oh, the radical, leftist of the Obama nation have a plan....

-Geaux


----------



## Mojo2

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Terrific!



I just noticed this thread. It started before I joined, I think. 

The numbers of responses it has is astonishing. There's really nothing else of importance for you Gun banners to say, in the final analysis, other than to post your plan as kaz challenged you to.

There IS no plan and yet the so-called "DEBATE" continues.

That's Liberals fer ya!

They never allow facts or reality to easily disturb their fantasy quest for Utopia via the Wrong Road of Shortsightedness and  Le Rue De Unintended Consequences.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Stop selling bullets.



Go for it. I cast my bullets

-Geaux


----------



## TemplarKormac

The only way I'd spend my bullets... is though the barrel of a gun.


----------



## Mojo2

It just hit me that MAYBE once everything shakes out the RW will have come to terms with the Gay thing and LWers will come to grips with the Constitution. Specifically, in this case, the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could apply.
> 
> For example. If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
> 
> Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
> 
> Example 2: You  leave your gun laying on the passenger seat of your unlocked car while you run into the store to pick up a gallon of milk.
> 
> Example 3: You live with a person who has a criminal record  or who is either too young, too mentally incomptent, too emotionally disturbed, to pass a gun purchase background check. You take no provisions to try to deny that person access to your gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow that is a wild way of looking at it.  so you have to keep your private property out of the sight of a potential criminal so you don't tempt him to steal it.    so I shouldn't park my Porsche in the driveway?  I shouldn't wear my rolex watch out in public?   what is it with you jokers always making excuses for the criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right?  Isn't that what nodog is telling us?
Click to expand...


Nope - but it might be easier to argue with that strawman than with my REAL position.
Which is: People who own guns have a responsibility to secure their weapon at least to the level of common sense and decent judgement, and gun owners need to show at least a minimal level of respect for the damage that can be inflicted if they fail to do so.

Just be a mature and responsible gun owner. Apparently THAT is just waaaay too much to ask of some people ?????? Well, THOSE are the types of people who I couldn't care less about pissing off.


----------



## Bumberclyde

RetiredGySgt said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.


----------



## Spoonman

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow that is a wild way of looking at it.  so you have to keep your private property out of the sight of a potential criminal so you don't tempt him to steal it.    so I shouldn't park my Porsche in the driveway?  I shouldn't wear my rolex watch out in public?   what is it with you jokers always making excuses for the criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right?  Isn't that what nodog is telling us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope - but it might be easier to argue with that strawman than with my REAL position.
> Which is: People who own guns have a responsibility to secure their weapon at least to the level of common sense and decent judgement, and gun owners need to show at least a minimal level of respect for the damage that can be inflicted if they fail to do so.
> 
> Just be a mature and responsible gun owner. Apparently THAT is just waaaay too much to ask of some people ?????? Well, THOSE are the types of people who I couldn't care less about pissing off.
Click to expand...


so are women who have breasts required to wear a bra?


----------



## Spoonman

Bumberclyde said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
Click to expand...


so we can restrict trade and commerce?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Spoonman said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right?  Isn't that what nodog is telling us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope - but it might be easier to argue with that strawman than with my REAL position.
> Which is: People who own guns have a responsibility to secure their weapon at least to the level of common sense and decent judgement, and gun owners need to show at least a minimal level of respect for the damage that can be inflicted if they fail to do so.
> 
> Just be a mature and responsible gun owner. Apparently THAT is just waaaay too much to ask of some people ?????? Well, THOSE are the types of people who I couldn't care less about pissing off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so are women who have breasts required to wear a bra?
Click to expand...


Not imho - why? What does that have to do with what I posted? Are their tits about to explode or something? Would the bra protect anyone?

Or is that just the best you could do?

I'll take that as a compliment, you couldn't muster up a real objection.


----------



## Mojo2

Bumberclyde said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop selling bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
Click to expand...


I was making black powder from readily available ingredients from the drug store as a kid.

I can't imagine they could prevent the sale of these ingredients.

Ammo would be possible.

More expensive. Uneven quality if buying from self loaders.

But available.

But before it got to that point there would be some domestic reaction to a direct infringement of the second A.

Possibly affecting the availability of ammo from black market sources.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Spoonman said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so we can restrict trade and commerce?
Click to expand...


You mean like with nukes and cruise missiles??


----------



## Bumberclyde

Mojo2 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was making black powder from readily available ingredients from the drug store as a kid.
> 
> I can't imagine they could prevent the sale of these ingredients.
> 
> Ammo would be possible.
> 
> More expensive. Uneven quality if buying from self loaders.
> 
> But available.
> 
> But before it got to that point there would be some domestic reaction to a direct infringement of the second A.
> 
> Possibly affecting the availability of ammo from black market sources.
Click to expand...


They used to sell the ingredients for meth at the drugstore as well.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Bumberclyde:

IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.

But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in an apartment complex with heavy traffic right in front of your apartment. There is a huge window in the front of your apartment. The shades are open so all this traffic can see - in plain sight - a pile of guns on your couch. Your door isn't locked. Someone would have to "break" into your house to get those guns technically, but in reality you've dangled a carrot in front of their nose and provided virtually no deterent.
> 
> Under my proposal this could meet the gross neglegence standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right?  Isn't that what nodog is telling us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope - but it might be easier to argue with that strawman than with my REAL position.
> Which is: People who own guns have a responsibility to secure their weapon at least to the level of common sense and decent judgement, and gun owners need to show at least a minimal level of respect for the damage that can be inflicted if they fail to do so.
Click to expand...

That was exactly what you said.  You are saying if they aren't discrete, then you are going to hold them accountable.  That is exactly like holding a woman accountable for wearing a slutty dress and getting raped.

Criminals are responsible for their own actions.



nodoginnafight said:


> Just be a mature and responsible gun owner. Apparently THAT is just waaaay too much to ask of some people ?????? Well, THOSE are the types of people who I couldn't care less about pissing off.



And you have no stats about how much of a problem this is.  I know lots of gun owners, I am a gun owner, and I know no one who does those things.  So how doest this address any more than a tiny piece of the problem?


----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman wears a provocative dress, then if she gets raped that was her fault, right?  Isn't that what nodog is telling us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope - but it might be easier to argue with that strawman than with my REAL position.
> Which is: People who own guns have a responsibility to secure their weapon at least to the level of common sense and decent judgement, and gun owners need to show at least a minimal level of respect for the damage that can be inflicted if they fail to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was exactly what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just be a mature and responsible gun owner. Apparently THAT is just waaaay too much to ask of some people ?????? Well, THOSE are the types of people who I couldn't care less about pissing off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have no stats about how much of a problem this is.  I know lots of gun owners, I am a gun owner, and I know no one who does those things.  So how doest this address any more than a tiny piece of the problem?
Click to expand...


I know a lot of gun owners too. The vast majority ARE responsible gun owners and (mostly) treat their weapons in the ways I've advocated. But some do not.

I never said this was the ONLY provisions I supported. I have listed others as well - other posters just kept citing this one again and again and I responded to them again and again.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope - but it might be easier to argue with that strawman than with my REAL position.
> Which is: People who own guns have a responsibility to secure their weapon at least to the level of common sense and decent judgement, and gun owners need to show at least a minimal level of respect for the damage that can be inflicted if they fail to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> That was exactly what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just be a mature and responsible gun owner. Apparently THAT is just waaaay too much to ask of some people ?????? Well, THOSE are the types of people who I couldn't care less about pissing off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have no stats about how much of a problem this is.  I know lots of gun owners, I am a gun owner, and I know no one who does those things.  So how doest this address any more than a tiny piece of the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a lot of gun owners too. The vast majority ARE responsible gun owners and (mostly) treat their weapons in the ways I've advocated. But some do not.
> 
> I never said this was the ONLY provisions I supported. I have listed others as well - other posters just kept citing this one again and again and I responded to them again and again.
Click to expand...


Fair enough on your point that you're responding to this because people bring it up to you.  I am drawing a blank as to what your other proposals were though, and I've followed this thread pretty closely as the OP.  I don't remember in particular like this anything that addressed any more than a tiny percent of guns.  Do you have proposals that address more than just a few outliers like this?


----------



## nodoginnafight

kaz said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was exactly what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no stats about how much of a problem this is.  I know lots of gun owners, I am a gun owner, and I know no one who does those things.  So how doest this address any more than a tiny piece of the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of gun owners too. The vast majority ARE responsible gun owners and (mostly) treat their weapons in the ways I've advocated. But some do not.
> 
> I never said this was the ONLY provisions I supported. I have listed others as well - other posters just kept citing this one again and again and I responded to them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough on your point that you're responding to this because people bring it up to you.  I am drawing a blank as to what your other proposals were though, and I've followed this thread pretty closely as the OP.  I don't remember in particular like this anything that addressed any more than a tiny percent of guns.  Do you have proposals that address more than just a few outliers like this?
Click to expand...


Well, this is a very long thread and I wouldn't expect people to be hanging on my every word either - so no sweat. Actually I'm happy to move away from the "be a responsible gun owner" meme because to me it is just so self-evident that I amazed that some folks seem to take such issue with it. But to each their own I suppose.

I also favor background checks for every gun purchase, and real enforcement against shadow buying (Now, exactly how do we put a stop to shadow buyers? I'm not positive - but I'm really open to listening to any ideas about how that can be accomplished.)

I favor putting the enforcement teeth back into the ATF (teeth mostly pulled by the Tiahardt Amendments) that will actually allow enforcement of our existing laws.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Spoonman said:


>


1. That's not how you spell misspell.
2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.


----------



## buckeye45_73

ClosedCaption said:


> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh



I think this says it all, they dont have tqlking points to repeat. Liberals on this board are nothing but puppets who cheer for anyone with a D by their name. I never see any of these guhs criticize a single democrat.


----------



## Mojo2

Bumberclyde said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was making black powder from readily available ingredients from the drug store as a kid.
> 
> I can't imagine they could prevent the sale of these ingredients.
> 
> Ammo would be possible.
> 
> More expensive. Uneven quality if buying from self loaders.
> 
> But available.
> 
> But before it got to that point there would be some domestic reaction to a direct infringement of the second A.
> 
> Possibly affecting the availability of ammo from black market sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They used to sell the ingredients for meth at the drugstore as well.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you oppose the Second Amendment?

Ahh. Noted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.


Pretty simple play actually.  If you have a gun you aren't supposed to have, or you're in an area when guns aren't allowed, and in either case you are not in the uniform of those allowed to carry guns, you're a criminal by definition and we shot you dead on the spot.  No trial, no exceptions, no worries. Next!


----------



## Mojo2

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> *2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> *3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
Click to expand...


*"2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things."
*

Guns were originally invented to kill people who would have otherwise killed them using non-ballistic weapons.

The ultimate defense when the other side is armed with hand held swords, knives, spears rocks, clubs or arrows.

Gun banners would disarm us all so that the common street thug with a gun can become a murderous criminal petite-legend in his own time.


----------



## buckeye45_73

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> 2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> 3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
Click to expand...


So your whole post was about misspelling?
 Wow, libtards have nothing on this one

lets get rid of murderers and not the tools


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Mojo2 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> *2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> *3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things."
> *
> 
> Guns were originally invented to kill people who would have otherwise killed them using non-ballistic weapons.
> 
> The ultimate defense when the other side is armed with hand held swords, knives, spears rocks, clubs or arrows.
> 
> Gun banners would disarm us all so that the common street thug with a gun can become a murderous criminal petite-legend in his own time.
Click to expand...

Under my rules he wouldn't live that long.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Meth, they still sell the ingrediants, because its household cleaners. We going to ban those because some retards want to loose their teeth? What stupidity


----------



## Spoonman

Bumberclyde said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so we can restrict trade and commerce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like with nukes and cruise missiles??
Click to expand...


seems like we have no control over terrorists getting them or rogue nations.


----------



## hunarcy

Spoonman said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the second protects firearms it by definition protects ammo too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so we can restrict trade and commerce?
Click to expand...


They can restrict and control interstate trade of ammo, but they can't control intrastate commerce.  So, everyone can make their own bullets.


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> 2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> 3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
Click to expand...


yea, but cars, and hammers and blunt objects and prescription medications and acts of god also kill people.   your argument is worn. all kinds of stuff approved by the FDA even kills people.  .0000305 guns in america kill anyone.  the percent is so small only a pea brain with an agenda would even be worrying about it.


----------



## Spoonman

hunarcy said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you might have a right to ammo, but the right for someone else to sell you ammo isn't protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so we can restrict trade and commerce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can restrict and control interstate trade of ammo, but they can't control intrastate commerce.  So, everyone can make their own bullets.
Click to expand...


well they can control it with unconstitutional laws.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> 2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> 3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea, but cars, and hammers and blunt objects and prescription medications and acts of god also kill people.   your argument is worn. all kinds of stuff approved by the FDA even kills people.  .0000305 guns in america kill anyone.  the percent is so small only a pea brain with an agenda would even be worrying about it.
Click to expand...

Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.


----------



## Mojo2

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty simple play actually.  If you have a gun you aren't supposed to have, or you're in an area when guns aren't allowed, and in either case you are not in the uniform of those allowed to carry guns, you're a criminal by definition and we shot you dead on the spot.  No trial, no exceptions, no worries. Next!
Click to expand...


If it didn't work for Hitler I why should we believe it will work for you, Hitler II?


----------



## Mojo2

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> 2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> 3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, but cars, and hammers and blunt objects and prescription medications and acts of god also kill people.   your argument is worn. all kinds of stuff approved by the FDA even kills people.  .0000305 guns in america kill anyone.  the percent is so small only a pea brain with an agenda would even be worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
Click to expand...


Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?

Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Mojo2 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea, but cars, and hammers and blunt objects and prescription medications and acts of god also kill people.   your argument is worn. all kinds of stuff approved by the FDA even kills people.  .0000305 guns in america kill anyone.  the percent is so small only a pea brain with an agenda would even be worrying about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
Click to expand...

No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.


----------



## Steven_R

PaintMyHouse said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
Click to expand...


Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Steven_R said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.
Click to expand...

Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.


----------



## Steven_R

How far do you want to ride that train, deciding which rights we'll allow you to keep based on someone's tragedy? You willing to lose your right to religion because someone's kid joins a cult and drinks poisoned Kool-Aid?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Steven_R said:


> How far do you want to ride that train, deciding which rights we'll allow you to keep based on someone's tragedy? You willing to lose your right to religion because someone's kid joins a cult and drinks poisoned Kool-Aid?


It's not lose, it's limit.  And we limit religion in case you've failed to notice.  I'm not appealing to emotion, a fallacy, I'm saying they and many others aren't pea brains for wanted better gun control.  It's rational position, especially if some nutter killed your small child eh?


----------



## Bumberclyde

buckeye45_73 said:


> Meth, they still sell the ingrediants, because its household cleaners. We going to ban those because some retards want to loose their teeth? What stupidity



It's the cold medication that they need to make meth. Now you know.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Spoonman said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> so we can restrict trade and commerce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can restrict and control interstate trade of ammo, but they can't control intrastate commerce.  So, everyone can make their own bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well they can control it with unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...


Everyone should have to make their own bullets. Most Merruccans are way too stupid to do that.


----------



## Bumberclyde

nodoginnafight said:


> Bumberclyde:
> 
> IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.
> 
> But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.



It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That's not how you spell misspell.
> 2. People kill people, with guns.  It's why guns were invented, to kill things.
> 3. The Internet was in invented so you could re-post rants from people who can't spell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, but cars, and hammers and blunt objects and prescription medications and acts of god also kill people.   your argument is worn. all kinds of stuff approved by the FDA even kills people.  .0000305 guns in america kill anyone.  the percent is so small only a pea brain with an agenda would even be worrying about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
Click to expand...


blame societies failures to deal with an adam lanza.  timothy mcviegh didn't need a gun to kill 8.5 times as many


----------



## Spoonman

Bumberclyde said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can restrict and control interstate trade of ammo, but they can't control intrastate commerce.  So, everyone can make their own bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well they can control it with unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone should have to make their own bullets. Most Merruccans are way too stupid to do that.
Click to expand...


nothing to it.  even making gun powder is easy


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.
Click to expand...


rights were never intended to have limitations.  the only reason they do is because pea brain liberals have allowed it to happen.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rights were never intended to have limitations.  the only reason they do is because pea brain liberals have allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...


I would say the "limit" of a right is when people start using it to infringe on other people's rights.  Like the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  That does require though that others rights are actually infringed.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde:
> 
> IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.
> 
> But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
Click to expand...


Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...

Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  The founding fathers weren't word parsers.  Obviously nobody said or meant that.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde:
> 
> IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.
> 
> But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...
> 
> Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  The founding fathers weren't word parsers.  Obviously nobody said or meant that.
Click to expand...


Back then most people melted their own musket balls. Now you know.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Bumberclyde said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde:
> 
> IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.
> 
> But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
Click to expand...


It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?

You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Just MHO


----------



## Bumberclyde

nodoginnafight said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde:
> 
> IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.
> 
> But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Just MHO
Click to expand...


The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...
> 
> Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  The founding fathers weren't word parsers.  Obviously nobody said or meant that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then most people melted their own musket balls. Now you know.
Click to expand...


Now I know what?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Bumberclyde said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Just MHO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.
Click to expand...


Yeah, ok. Hang your hat on that argument if you want.

Lemme know how that works out for you.


----------



## Spoonman

Bumberclyde said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Just MHO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.
Click to expand...


ok, chalks you up to one of the totally clueless


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
Click to expand...


don't want a gun, don't own one.  but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights


----------



## Spoonman

Bumberclyde said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde:
> 
> IMHO - The right of an individual to own and firearm (and logically the ammo to go along with it) is clearly protected by the Constitution. If you want to change that then you can get your votes together and change it - it's been done before.
> 
> But I cannot support an "end-run" around the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
Click to expand...


yea, it says you have the right to vote but it doesn't say you have the right to enter a polling facility.  get real


----------



## hunarcy

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it doesn't say firing pins, well, it doesn't say triggers...
> 
> Ammo are part of arms and not selling ammo infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  The founding fathers weren't word parsers.  Obviously nobody said or meant that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then most people melted their own musket balls. Now you know.
Click to expand...


My gosh, you're a pedantic little troll.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't want a gun, don't own one.  but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights
Click to expand...


Yes, we have the right to have babies ... I mean guns ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R79yYo2aOZs]The 'Right' to Have Babies - Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Mojo2

Bumberclyde said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that you have a right to buy ammo. We all know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying an unloaded weapon, are you really armed?
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your belief and to try to convince others that your belief is the correct one, but I don't think too many people are going to buy into this stretch. I think it's pretty obvious to virtually everyone that this is just a sophomoric attempt to get around the fact that you can't get enough votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Just MHO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FFs gave a right to have arms because back then people couldn't make them themselves. But bullets yes, everyone was melting metal into musket balls.
Click to expand...


Just for the record:

The Founding Fathers did not GIVE us anything except emancipation from Great Britain, a very good idea for governing ourselves and the formula to maintain our freedom they won.

The rights in the Bill of Rights are those they recognized as God given birthrights they declared would be defended by law.

But of these "gifts" from our Founding Fathers, today's Liberals want to emulate GB's disastrous immigration policies, Liberals have given their whole hearted support to a POTUS who wants to fundamentally change the very good idea for governing ourselves and today's Liberals want to do away with the Second Amendment, which guarantees the viability of all the other rights in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Mojo2

PaintMyHouse said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
Click to expand...


Your logic and sense of reason is either on vacation or non-existent.

You are either making a perfunctory and symbolic (maybe cynical) protest for the sake of those families' sentiments or you are actually, incredibly, suggesting the concern and sympathy we may feel for those few thousands are worth the rest of us losing our freedom.

*The 2nd Amendment was created with ONE REASON in mind.*

And your post shows you don't know what that reason is.

I'll wait for you to Google it.

NOW do you have anything to say?


----------



## nodoginnafight

> The rights in the Bill of Rights are those they recognized as God given birthrights they declared would be defended by law.



Yeah, I've heard this one before. 
I always hate it when someone tries to twist MY God into something that supports their political agenda.

I am a Christian - God doesn't give a flip about what kind of society you live in. He didn't give you civil, social, or political rights. He gave you the opportunity to know him. PERIOD. If you think he cares about politics, then you obviously passed on that opportunity.


----------



## RKMBrown

nodoginnafight said:


> The rights in the Bill of Rights are those they recognized as God given birthrights they declared would be defended by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've heard this one before.
> I always hate it when someone tries to twist MY God into something that supports their political agenda.
> 
> I am a Christian - God doesn't give a flip about what kind of society you live in. He didn't give you civil, social, or political rights. He gave you the opportunity to know him. PERIOD. If you think he cares about politics, then you obviously passed on that opportunity.
Click to expand...


Then substitute "inherent" for "god" and get over yourself.


----------



## kaz

nodoginnafight said:


> The rights in the Bill of Rights are those they recognized as God given birthrights they declared would be defended by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've heard this one before.
> I always hate it when someone tries to twist MY God into something that supports their political agenda.
> 
> I am a Christian - God doesn't give a flip about what kind of society you live in. He didn't give you civil, social, or political rights. He gave you the opportunity to know him. PERIOD. If you think he cares about politics, then you obviously passed on that opportunity.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking it's the same God as the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


----------



## Mojo2

nodoginnafight said:


> The rights in the Bill of Rights are those they recognized as God given birthrights they declared would be defended by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've heard this one before.
> I always hate it when someone tries to twist MY God into something that supports their political agenda.
> 
> I am a Christian - God doesn't give a flip about what kind of society you live in. He didn't give you civil, social, or political rights. He gave you the opportunity to know him. PERIOD. If you think he cares about politics, then you obviously passed on that opportunity.
Click to expand...


Off topic.

Don't try to change the subject.


----------



## hunarcy

PaintMyHouse said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents of 20 dead kids = pea brains.  Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
Click to expand...


Yep, the parents are emotionally invested which means they can't think rationally.  It's is the height of folly to try to limit the rights of millions of people because of the actions of a very small percentage of people.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rights were never intended to have limitations.  the only reason they do is because pea brain liberals have allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Courts disagrees.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the freedom of the 300,000,000?
> 
> Your argument only works for mush brained Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't want a gun, don't own one.  but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights
Click to expand...

Is that like abortion?  And we limit your rights here, all of them, so sorry.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Follow the plan of Illinois: pass the strictest gun controls in the Land and let your largest city (Chicago) have the highest rate of gun murders in the Country.


----------



## hunarcy

PaintMyHouse said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.
Click to expand...


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms *SHALLL NOT BE INFRINGED"*

So, in our system, there's not to be limitations on that right...in spite of your opinion.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hunarcy said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their tragedy doesn't trump my rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms *SHALLL NOT BE INFRINGED"*
> 
> So, in our system, there's not to be limitations on that right...in spite of your opinion.
Click to expand...

Reality says differently.  Now what?


----------



## Geaux4it

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't want a gun, don't own one.  but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that like abortion?  And we limit your rights here, all of them, so sorry.
Click to expand...


What the radical gun grabbing loons don't understand is they are in the minority plain and simple. Until they change that metic its all emotion and blah...blah...blah.. 

Have fun anyway

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

LeftofLeft said:


> Follow the plan of Illinois: pass the strictest gun controls in the Land and let your largest city (Chicago) have the highest rate of gun murders in the Country.



So they tried something and it didn't work, at least they're trying. The gun loons want more guns everywhere, which also isn't working. It's like cancer, it might take a really long time to figure out a cure for every situation, and they won't stop trying until they get it done. Bravo!


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the plan of Illinois: pass the strictest gun controls in the Land and let your largest city (Chicago) have the highest rate of gun murders in the Country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they tried something and it didn't work, at least they're trying. The gun loons want more guns everywhere, which also isn't working. It's like cancer, it might take a really long time to figure out a cure for every situation, and they won't stop trying until they get it done. Bravo!
Click to expand...


Why try what has proven not to work?

Like the guy that throws cold water on a grease fire.. Not smart, but hey, 'at least they did something'.. lol

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow the plan of Illinois: pass the strictest gun controls in the Land and let your largest city (Chicago) have the highest rate of gun murders in the Country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they tried something and it didn't work, at least they're trying. The gun loons want more guns everywhere, which also isn't working. It's like cancer, it might take a really long time to figure out a cure for every situation, and they won't stop trying until they get it done. Bravo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why try what has proven not to work?
> 
> Like the guy that throws cold water on a grease fire.. Not smart, but hey, 'at least they did something'.. lol
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

If the gun loons would get out of the way, I'm sure the laws could be changed to try to find a cure for this cancer. Fingerprint scan on the gun would be a start, little kids would never find armed guns again, even if loaded. But too many gun loons, the cancer appears terminal.


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they tried something and it didn't work, at least they're trying. The gun loons want more guns everywhere, which also isn't working. It's like cancer, it might take a really long time to figure out a cure for every situation, and they won't stop trying until they get it done. Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why try what has proven not to work?
> 
> Like the guy that throws cold water on a grease fire.. Not smart, but hey, 'at least they did something'.. lol
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the gun loons would get out of the way, I'm sure the laws could be changed to try to find a cure for this cancer. Fingerprint scan on the gun would be a start, little kids would never find armed guns again, even if loaded. But too many gun loons, the cancer appears terminal.
Click to expand...


With ideas like that no wonder your movement is a failure

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why try what has proven not to work?
> 
> Like the guy that throws cold water on a grease fire.. Not smart, but hey, 'at least they did something'.. lol
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> If the gun loons would get out of the way, I'm sure the laws could be changed to try to find a cure for this cancer. Fingerprint scan on the gun would be a start, little kids would never find armed guns again, even if loaded. But too many gun loons, the cancer appears terminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With ideas like that no wonder your movement is a failure
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Thanks for the pointless gun loon comeback.


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means that some people have a very good reason to seek much greater gun control.  To them it's personal about not about the pleasure you get from playing with your deadly, yet Constitutionally approved, toys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't want a gun, don't own one.  but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that like abortion?  And we limit your rights here, all of them, so sorry.
Click to expand...


is abortion a constitutional right?  I didn't think so.

btw, why aren't you out bitching about the millions of abortion deaths a year hypocrite?  want to save some lives, start with some big numbers


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't want a gun, don't own one.  but don't think you are going to infringe on our rights
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like abortion?  And we limit your rights here, all of them, so sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is abortion a constitutional right?  I didn't think so.
> 
> btw, why aren't you out bitching about the millions of abortion deaths a year hypocrite?  want to save some lives, start with some big numbers
Click to expand...

Who said I want to save lives?  And we are talking about your inability to understand that rights have limitations.


----------



## hunarcy

PaintMyHouse said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  But it doesn't mean they are pea brains either.  And all rights have limitation, including the deadly toys one, so if they fight for more, that's their right as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms *SHALLL NOT BE INFRINGED"*
> 
> So, in our system, there's not to be limitations on that right...in spite of your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality says differently.  Now what?
Click to expand...


we rein in activist judges and get back to the ideal.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hunarcy said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms *SHALLL NOT BE INFRINGED"*
> 
> So, in our system, there's not to be limitations on that right...in spite of your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Reality says differently.  Now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we rein in activist judges and get back to the ideal.
Click to expand...

They are only "activist" when you didn't get your way.


----------



## hunarcy

PaintMyHouse said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality says differently.  Now what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we rein in activist judges and get back to the ideal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are only "activist" when you didn't get your way.
Click to expand...


Examples that prove your statement about me is correct?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they tried something and it didn't work, at least they're trying. The gun loons want more guns everywhere, which also isn't working. It's like cancer, it might take a really long time to figure out a cure for every situation, and they won't stop trying until they get it done. Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why try what has proven not to work?
> 
> Like the guy that throws cold water on a grease fire.. Not smart, but hey, 'at least they did something'.. lol
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the gun loons would get out of the way, I'm sure the laws could be changed to try to find a cure for this cancer. Fingerprint scan on the gun would be a start, little kids would never find armed guns again, even if loaded. But too many gun loons, the cancer appears terminal.
Click to expand...


Guns scare you because you envision rogue gun wavers who could shoot you.  So you take guns away from honest citizens, so it's only the rogue gun wavers who have any guns.  And you're safe now.

Gotcha


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like abortion?  And we limit your rights here, all of them, so sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is abortion a constitutional right?  I didn't think so.
> 
> btw, why aren't you out bitching about the millions of abortion deaths a year hypocrite?  want to save some lives, start with some big numbers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said I want to save lives?  And we are talking about your inability to understand that rights have limitations.
Click to expand...


no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the gun loons would get out of the way, I'm sure the laws could be changed to try to find a cure for this cancer. Fingerprint scan on the gun would be a start, little kids would never find armed guns again, even if loaded. But too many gun loons, the cancer appears terminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With ideas like that no wonder your movement is a failure
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the pointless gun loon comeback.
Click to expand...


Right, rational people just want criminals armed.  We loons believe we should have the right to be armed as well.  Very persuasive, you are.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> is abortion a constitutional right?  I didn't think so.
> 
> btw, why aren't you out bitching about the millions of abortion deaths a year hypocrite?  want to save some lives, start with some big numbers
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I want to save lives?  And we are talking about your inability to understand that rights have limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.
Click to expand...

Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.


----------



## kaz

Spoonman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> is abortion a constitutional right?  I didn't think so.
> 
> btw, why aren't you out bitching about the millions of abortion deaths a year hypocrite?  want to save some lives, start with some big numbers
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I want to save lives?  And we are talking about your inability to understand that rights have limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.
Click to expand...


Government doesn't infringe on our rights, only Christians do.  And conservatives, but conservatives are all socons.  And libertarians are all Republicans, who are neocons, which is the same as socon, so it's all the same.  The actual meaning of the second amendment is that the Church can't infringe on government's right to have guns or restrict government from preventing honest citizens from having guns.  Get it now?


----------



## hunarcy

PaintMyHouse said:


> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.



The only limitation on a right is when exercising the right directly affects the rights of others, not if it "might" affect someone someday.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I want to save lives?  And we are talking about your inability to understand that rights have limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.
Click to expand...


In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
Click to expand...


So Spoon, you're not upset that you can't buy nukes or cruise missiles?


----------



## Spoonman

PaintMyHouse said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I want to save lives?  And we are talking about your inability to understand that rights have limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.
Click to expand...


subversives acknowledge limitations.  governments trying to take control away from the people and give it to themselves acknowledge limitations.   limitations take the power from the people where it was intended to be and hand it over to government which is what the founding fathers fought a war to take away.  every limit place on our rights weakens us as a nation.  liberals love big government and love limits.  big government sells out to the highest bidder. has us almost 18 trillion i debt, has 47% of the population on entitlements,  has people working for slave wages.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Spoon, you're not upset that you can't buy nukes or cruise missiles?
Click to expand...


The government does not have the right to infringe on your right to bear arms, it is not required to sell you arms.  So I don't know how you're going to get those things.  And if you do, how you're not going to infringe on other people's rights since nukes have lots of radiation issues.  However, if you can and you can do it in a way that doesn't infringe on other's rights, why should you be restricted from those?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> no rights don't have limitations.  limitations that have been put on them are unconstitutional.  when a right says, shall not be infringed.  it means no limitations.  it does not say the right to bear arms with the limitations set forth by congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
Click to expand...

In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Spoon, you're not upset that you can't buy nukes or cruise missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government does not have the right to infringe on your right to bear arms, it is not required to sell you arms.  So I don't know how you're going to get those things.  And if you do, how you're not going to infringe on other people's rights since nukes have lots of radiation issues.  However, if you can and you can do it in a way that doesn't infringe on other's rights, why should you be restricted from those?
Click to expand...


Stray bullets don't seem to have any problems infringing on other people's rights. And you can buy missiles and all kinds of crap on the open and black markets worldwide, except see what the government does when you try to bring it or ship it home. Better still, advertise some anti-aircraft missiles on eBay with a US address and see what happens.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Spoon, you're not upset that you can't buy nukes or cruise missiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have the right to infringe on your right to bear arms, it is not required to sell you arms.  So I don't know how you're going to get those things.  And if you do, how you're not going to infringe on other people's rights since nukes have lots of radiation issues.  However, if you can and you can do it in a way that doesn't infringe on other's rights, why should you be restricted from those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stray bullets don't seem to have any problems infringing on other people's rights.
Click to expand...

If you want to go with snarkey that is fine, but it needs to at some level make sense.



Bumberclyde said:


> And you can buy missiles and all kinds of crap on the open and black markets worldwide, except see what the government does when you try to bring it or ship it home. Better still, advertise some anti-aircraft missiles on eBay with a US address and see what happens.



Talk about not making sense, so when we object to government infringing on our second amendment rights, you give us the example as some sort of rebuttal that government is infringing on our second amendment rights?  Can you clarify the point you think you are making here?


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'd just love to respond to that but reality won't allow me to.  In the real world we acknowledge the limitations on rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
Click to expand...


In liberal reality, socialism makes capitalism more capitalist, if you pay poor workers more they will work harder, if you send trillions of dollars to poor countries you will solve global warming, when Democrats do the exact same things as Republicans Democrats are good and Republicans are evil, and criminals won't buy illegal guns.  Liberal reality has nothing to do with factual reality, you really need to be able to tell those apart.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In liberal reality, socialism makes capitalism more capitalist, if you pay poor workers more they will work harder, if you send trillions of dollars to poor countries you will solve global warming, when Democrats do the exact same things as Republicans Democrats are good and Republicans are evil, and criminals won't buy illegal guns.  Liberal reality has nothing to do with factual reality, you really need to be able to tell those apart.
Click to expand...

Based upon your post, you and reality haven't been on friendly terms for quite some time now.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In liberal reality, socialism makes capitalism more capitalist, if you pay poor workers more they will work harder, if you send trillions of dollars to poor countries you will solve global warming, when Democrats do the exact same things as Republicans Democrats are good and Republicans are evil, and criminals won't buy illegal guns.  Liberal reality has nothing to do with factual reality, you really need to be able to tell those apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based upon your post, you and reality haven't been on friendly terms for quite some time now.
Click to expand...


You really don't think about what you're saying or what other liberals say, do you?


----------



## buckeye45_73

I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.


----------



## Bumberclyde

buckeye45_73 said:


> I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.



WoW! 10,000+ posts and you're still a noob. I guess we should stop looking for the cure to cancer as well, I mean, since we haven't cured it yet we should stop trying?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoW! 10,000+ posts and you're still a noob. I guess we should stop looking for the cure to cancer as well, I mean, since we haven't cured it yet we should stop trying?
Click to expand...


If our approach to curing cancer is to re-try solutions that we already know don't work, then yeah, we should quit trying...


----------



## buckeye45_73

Bumberclyde said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoW! 10,000+ posts and you're still a noob. I guess we should stop looking for the cure to cancer as well, I mean, since we haven't cured it yet we should stop trying?
Click to expand...


Wow 1000 posts and comparing gun control to cancer researchand you call me a noob. One of my summer jobs i worked for my dad working on cancer research. See the key is when it doesnt work, you try something different.


But you still didnt refute any of the posts. You think criminals will abide by the law, thats stupid. The bloods and crips dont buy guns at walmart


----------



## Geaux4it

buckeye45_73 said:


> I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.


----------



## Bumberclyde

buckeye45_73 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WoW! 10,000+ posts and you're still a noob. I guess we should stop looking for the cure to cancer as well, I mean, since we haven't cured it yet we should stop trying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow 1000 posts and comparing gun control to cancer researchand you call me a noob. One of my summer jobs i worked for my dad working on cancer research. *See the key is when it doesnt work, you try something different.*
> 
> 
> But you still didnt refute any of the posts. You think criminals will abide by the law, thats stupid. The bloods and crips dont buy guns at walmart
Click to expand...

Like cancer, try something different, exactly my point. Thanks.


----------



## Moonglow

make sure criminals have their hands cut off to keep them away from using firearms...


----------



## Brain357

Geaux4it said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still think gun free zones are the way to go. I mean all these mass shootings happening at places where guns are banned, I mean how can that not convince you that gun control works and criminals would never break the law.
Click to expand...


Do you really think there won't always be people who are easy targets regardless of whether there are gun free zones?  Are we going to arm every child?  Make people carry guns everywhere they go?  At least gun free zones eliminate any accidents, gun owners aren't the brightest.  
Man in second floor apartment struck by wayward bullet from lower unit


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> WoW! 10,000+ posts and you're still a noob. I guess we should stop looking for the cure to cancer as well, I mean, since we haven't cured it yet we should stop trying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow 1000 posts and comparing gun control to cancer researchand you call me a noob. One of my summer jobs i worked for my dad working on cancer research. *See the key is when it doesnt work, you try something different.*
> 
> 
> But you still didnt refute any of the posts. You think criminals will abide by the law, thats stupid. The bloods and crips dont buy guns at walmart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like cancer, try something different, exactly my point. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Applauding doing something different while you propose doing the same thing we've always done.  That's helpful.  You just want to vary the type of gun regulations we already know that only honest citizens follow.  You are at best removing a few accidental shootings, but you're causing with imperfect technology more deaths and accomplishing nothing regarding keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals.


----------



## kaz

Moonglow said:


> make sure criminals have their hands cut off to keep them away from using firearms...



OK, granted as the OP I didn't mention wanted serious proposals that if enacted we would still be a moral, free country, I thought no one was stupid enough to need those paramaters actually explicitly stated.  I stand corrected.

I will add as the OP the parameters that we still want to be a moral, free country in the process....


----------



## kaz

Brain357 said:


> Do you really think there won't always be people who are easy targets regardless of whether there are gun free zones?



Yes, there will be.  What is the relevance of the question to the discussion?


----------



## Wildman

PaintMyHouse said:


> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.



please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*


----------



## Bumberclyde

Wildman said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
Click to expand...


Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...


----------



## Geaux4it

Bumberclyde said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
Click to expand...


It's not because they are not allowed to average law abiding citizen is because said citizens allow the law to sustain. But at some point, the machine will be challenged. And the preservation of the second amendment will be the high ground worth fighting for

-Geaux


----------



## Bumberclyde

Geaux4it said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not because they are not allowed to average law abiding citizen is because said citizens allow the law to sustain. But at some point, the machine will be challenged. And the preservation of the second amendment will be the high ground worth fighting for
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, the citizens have no power to allow such a law to be sustained. I WANT MY NUKE NOW!!!!!


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not because they are not allowed to average law abiding citizen is because said citizens allow the law to sustain. But at some point, the machine will be challenged. And the preservation of the second amendment will be the high ground worth fighting for
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, the citizens have no power to allow such a law to be sustained. I WANT MY NUKE NOW!!!!!
Click to expand...


You have a pattern pretty clearly established that no matter how many times your questions are answered, you continue to ask them anyway.  But once again, the Constitution does not require anyone, including government, to actually provide arms.  And government can protect other people from being harmed by you, including radiation.

SO without government providing the nukes and without your harming others, what exactly is your plan to get these nukes?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
Click to expand...


Again, a question that has been answered, you ignore the answer and continue to re-ask the question.

The limit of rights is when you start to infringe on other people's rights.

As long as you are not infringing on anyone's rights, how can government arbitrarily decide that you have had enough of that particular right?  They can't.


----------



## Bumberclyde

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a question that has been answered, you ignore the answer and continue to re-ask the question.
> 
> The limit of rights is when you start to infringe on other people's rights.
> 
> As long as you are not infringing on anyone's rights, how can government arbitrarily decide that you have had enough of that particular right?  They can't.
Click to expand...


No, you just keep giving me the same bullshit answer. Please stop replying to my posts, you make no sense. Stray bullets infringe on everyone's rights. Having an unexploded cluster bomb in your closet doesn't. Please don't try again. Just fuck off.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a question that has been answered, you ignore the answer and continue to re-ask the question.
> 
> The limit of rights is when you start to infringe on other people's rights.
> 
> As long as you are not infringing on anyone's rights, how can government arbitrarily decide that you have had enough of that particular right?  They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you just keep giving me the same bullshit answer. Please stop replying to my posts, you make no sense. Stray bullets infringe on everyone's rights. Having an unexploded cluster bomb in your closet doesn't. Please don't try again. Just fuck off.
Click to expand...


The red above is a pretty coherent answer to your incoherent question.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your world, you don't recognize rights at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Spoon, you're not upset that you can't buy nukes or cruise missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government does not have the right to infringe on your right to bear arms, it is not required to sell you arms.  So I don't know how you're going to get those things.  And if you do, how you're not going to infringe on other people's rights since nukes have lots of radiation issues.  However, if you can and you can do it in a way that doesn't infringe on other's rights, why should you be restricted from those?
Click to expand...


That troll has been told that there's a difference between arms and ordinance, but it just keeps repeating the same inane and stupid comments.  

Judging by the quotes I see in other people's posts, I miss nothing by having him on ignore, because he's truly not worth reading


----------



## Bumberclyde

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Spoon, you're not upset that you can't buy nukes or cruise missiles?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have the right to infringe on your right to bear arms, it is not required to sell you arms.  So I don't know how you're going to get those things.  And if you do, how you're not going to infringe on other people's rights since nukes have lots of radiation issues.  However, if you can and you can do it in a way that doesn't infringe on other's rights, why should you be restricted from those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That troll has been told that* there's a difference between arms and ordinance*, but it just keeps repeating the same inane and stupid comments.
> 
> Judging by the quotes I see in other people's posts, I miss nothing by having him on ignore, because he's truly not worth reading
Click to expand...

Show us all in the Constitution where it says that. 

You can't buy rocket or sarin gas launchers, nuclear subs or attack helicopters... Your 2nd Amendment rights have already been infringed. So what are you pussies going to do about it? Nothing? Or argue that you have no right to such arms. Probably both.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have the right to infringe on your right to bear arms, it is not required to sell you arms.  So I don't know how you're going to get those things.  And if you do, how you're not going to infringe on other people's rights since nukes have lots of radiation issues.  However, if you can and you can do it in a way that doesn't infringe on other's rights, why should you be restricted from those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That troll has been told that* there's a difference between arms and ordinance*, but it just keeps repeating the same inane and stupid comments.
> 
> Judging by the quotes I see in other people's posts, I miss nothing by having him on ignore, because he's truly not worth reading
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us all in the Constitution where it says that.
> 
> You can't buy rocket or sarin gas launchers, nuclear subs or attack helicopters... Your 2nd Amendment rights have already been infringed. So what are you pussies going to do about it? Nothing? Or argue that you have no right to such arms. Probably both.
Click to expand...


Bam, negative rep!  Now that's what I'm talking about.

What a little fem, you don't have the functioning male parts to speak in words, so you lash out in your little squeaky voice the only way you can.  With negative rep. -11 points, even liberals don't see a dick.  What a bitch.  LMAO.


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> You can't buy rocket or sarin gas launchers, nuclear subs or attack helicopters... Your 2nd Amendment rights have already been infringed. So what are you pussies going to do about it? Nothing? Or argue that you have no right to such arms. Probably both.



We are expressing our views.  You view yourself as a douche rag, so your views are meaningless and you don't think expressing them accomplishes anything.  In your case, you're right.  But as you can see on this site, a lot more people haven't given up on freedom than you would like to believe.  Change starts with us all knowing there are more of us out there then we realize sometimes with the mindless drone of the liberal media and their kool-aid gulpers like you.


----------



## Bumberclyde

I'll wait for someone with a real point to respond, thanks.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Bumberclyde said:


> I'll wait for someone with a real point to respond, thanks.


Well has anyone challenged not owning fighter jets, tanks and nukes in court? What was the response?


----------



## Bumberclyde

buckeye45_73 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll wait for someone with a real point to respond, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Well has anyone challenged not owning fighter jets, tanks and nukes in court? What was the response?
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know, have they?


----------



## MisterBeale

Here's what the left has in mind. . . .


----------



## MisterBeale

I guess if law abiding citizens don't have them, criminals can't steal them?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

One can own a jet, one can only arm that Jet with permission from the Government. AS IT IS A STRATEGIC ASSET. The Navy was the strategic asset when the founders wrote the Constitution. And notice it is barred for States or private citizens to own armed naval vessels except during war and with the permission of the Federal Government.

Missiles are strategic assets as well.

That would include nuclear weapons and nuclear armed weapons.

The 2nd clearly refers to individual arms. A bazooka, an RPG or any other crew served weapon is not an individual's weapon in regards the 2nd.

Due to abuse fully automatic weapons are licensed by the Federal Government. But one can own them in most States with a license.

So the 2nd applies to rifles, shotguns and pistols. As was understood by the framers of the 2nd. Cannon and such can be possessed as well but if not a Militia recognized by the State they usually require a license or be rendered inoperable.

One can own a tank if they wish and with the proper license they can have it fully operational. That is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment at all.

Grenades are explosives not arms but with the proper license again one can own grenades.

Any more stupid questions?


----------



## Bumberclyde

RetiredGySgt said:


> One can own a jet, one can only arm that Jet with permission from the Government. AS IT IS A STRATEGIC ASSET. The Navy was the strategic asset when the founders wrote the Constitution. And notice it is barred for States or private citizens to own armed naval vessels except during war and with the permission of the Federal Government.
> 
> Missiles are strategic assets as well.
> 
> That would include nuclear weapons and nuclear armed weapons.
> 
> The 2nd clearly refers to individual arms. A bazooka, an RPG or any other crew served weapon is not an individual's weapon in regards the 2nd.
> 
> Due to abuse fully automatic weapons are licensed by the Federal Government. But one can own them in most States with a license.
> 
> So the 2nd applies to rifles, shotguns and pistols. As was understood by the framers of the 2nd. Cannon and such can be possessed as well but if not a Militia recognized by the State they usually require a license or be rendered inoperable.
> 
> One can own a tank if they wish and with the proper license they can have it fully operational. That is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment at all.
> 
> Grenades are explosives not arms but with the proper license again one can own grenades.
> 
> Any more stupid questions?



I guess "will not be infringed" to you means "will be infringed".


----------



## kaz

MisterBeale said:


> I guess if law abiding citizens don't have them, criminals can't steal them?



They can't steal them from law abiding citizens, but they can steal them from each other or just buy them illegally.  So what exactly is your point?


----------



## kaz

Bumberclyde said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can own a jet, one can only arm that Jet with permission from the Government. AS IT IS A STRATEGIC ASSET. The Navy was the strategic asset when the founders wrote the Constitution. And notice it is barred for States or private citizens to own armed naval vessels except during war and with the permission of the Federal Government.
> 
> Missiles are strategic assets as well.
> 
> That would include nuclear weapons and nuclear armed weapons.
> 
> The 2nd clearly refers to individual arms. A bazooka, an RPG or any other crew served weapon is not an individual's weapon in regards the 2nd.
> 
> Due to abuse fully automatic weapons are licensed by the Federal Government. But one can own them in most States with a license.
> 
> So the 2nd applies to rifles, shotguns and pistols. As was understood by the framers of the 2nd. Cannon and such can be possessed as well but if not a Militia recognized by the State they usually require a license or be rendered inoperable.
> 
> One can own a tank if they wish and with the proper license they can have it fully operational. That is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment at all.
> 
> Grenades are explosives not arms but with the proper license again one can own grenades.
> 
> Any more stupid questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess "will not be infringed" to you means "will be infringed".
Click to expand...


I don't get your line of questioning where we are saying that government is infringing on our rights and you keep coming back saying aha, they are infringing on our rights as if that's news to us.  What is your point with that exactly?


----------



## Bumberclyde

I know you don't get it, that's why I'll wait for someone with a clue before responding.


----------



## Wildman

Bumberclyde said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, often called reality, we do recognize them,and we also recognize, like nearly all things, that they have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
Click to expand...


you fucking libertraitors always go towards the extremes, i have no desire to buy or own any of the weapons you mention.,, all i want is a Colt M4 !


----------



## Wildman

Bumberclyde said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not because they are not allowed to average law abiding citizen is because said citizens allow the law to sustain. But at some point, the machine will be challenged. And the preservation of the second amendment will be the high ground worth fighting for
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, the citizens have no power to allow such a law to be sustained. *I WANT MY NUKE NOW!!!!!*
Click to expand...


*well.., if you insist,* as soon as you get all the liberfools from USMB plus many others, i would love nothing better than deliver a NUKE on your heads.    ....   ...


----------



## Bumberclyde

Wildman said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> please tell me the limits of my rights, i have never heard of* "limited rights"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like not being able to buy ANY arms that you want, namely, nukes, cruise missiles, anthrax, scuds, cluster bombs, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fucking libertraitors always go towards the extremes, i have no desire to buy or own any of the weapons you mention.,, all i want is a Colt M4 !
Click to expand...

That's fine if that's all you want, but if you wanted more, you couldn't get any of it. "shall not be infringed" has been infringed, you're just too much of a pantywaist to do anything about the tyrannical government that took away some of your 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Wildman said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not because they are not allowed to average law abiding citizen is because said citizens allow the law to sustain. But at some point, the machine will be challenged. And the preservation of the second amendment will be the high ground worth fighting for
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, the citizens have no power to allow such a law to be sustained. *I WANT MY NUKE NOW!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *well.., if you insist,* as soon as you get all the liberfools from USMB plus many others, i would love nothing better than deliver a NUKE on your heads.    ....   ...
Click to expand...

Too bad your tyrannical government already infringed on your 2nd amendment rights and you can't buy a nuke.


----------



## Spoonman

well for starters, you can get rid of your elected officials.  with guys like this and eric holder, no wonder we have all those unregistered guns in the hands of criminals..

http://news.yahoo.com/california-state-senator-arrested-fbi-sweep-005409780--finance.html

SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO (Reuters) - A prominent California lawmaker was arrested on Wednesday in an FBI sweep that netted 26 people, a high-profile case that could affect statewide elections and brings to three the number of Democratic state senators who face criminal charges this year.

Senator Leland Yee, a former San Francisco supervisor and one-time mayoral candidate, was criminally charged in federal court in San Francisco with two felony counts of conspiring to import and traffic in firearms, and six corruption counts.

Yee's arrest deals a body blow to California Democrats, whose two-thirds majority in the state Senate was eroded when Senator Ron Calderon, indicted on corruption charges, and State Senator Rod Wright, found guilty of voter fraud, took paid leaves of absence earlier this year.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if law abiding citizens don't have them, criminals can't steal them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't steal them from law abiding citizens, but they can steal them from each other or just buy them illegally.  So what exactly is your point?
Click to expand...


That guy is unaware that Clyde Barrow of Bonnie and Clyde fame use a Browning Automatic Rifle, that he stole from a National Guard Armory.  

Of course, he'd say, "That was a long time ago."  and that's true.  But, this was last year.

Cartels Using Weapons Stolen From US Military Bases: Thieves Stealing Police Cars, Grenades And Guns pictures and video | Alternative


----------



## P@triot

MisterBeale said:


> I guess if law abiding citizens don't have them, criminals can't steal them?



This is liberal "logic" at its finest, right here folks! Law abiding citizens do not have cocaine - yet it is rampant and criminals seem to have no problem getting their hands on it.

Law abiding citizens do not have heroin - yet it is rampant and criminals seem to have no problem getting their hands on it.

Law abiding citizens do not have meth - yet it is rampant and criminals seem to have no problem getting their hands on it.

Law abiding citizens do not have marijuana - yet it is rampant and criminals seem to have no problem getting their hands on it.

Law abiding citizens do not have LSD - yet it is rampant and criminals seem to have no problem getting their hands on it.

Law abiding citizens do not have PCP - yet it is rampant and criminals seem to have no problem getting their hands on it.

Dumbocrats NEVER have a plan (which is why poverty, misery, and collapse always ensues wherever they are in control). They think emotional feel-good fairytales and unicorns make for good "plans"


----------



## IlarMeilyr

I don't even have a gun;

But I support the Second Amendment.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

IlarMeilyr said:


> I don't even have a gun;
> 
> But I support the Second Amendment.


I'm the opposite.


----------



## bucs90

Keep guns from criminals? Well, we know the GOP's plan:

- Flood the streets with more guns
- Slash the budget of the police department
- Slash the budget of the jail
- Blame results on Democrats


----------



## M14 Shooter

bucs90 said:


> Keep guns from criminals? Well, we know the GOP's plan:
> 
> - Flood the streets with more guns
> - Slash the budget of the police department
> - Slash the budget of the jail
> - Blame results on Democrats


Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Geaux4it

Nice thread bump on a sure-fire 'anti-gun loon magnet fest.

Wackos

-Geaux


----------



## IlarMeilyr

PaintMyHouse said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even have a gun;
> 
> But I support the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the opposite.
Click to expand...


You HAVE a gun but are opposed to the Constitutional Amendment that guarantees your RIGHT to have it?

Interesting.  Not rational.  But interesting.

Maybe "amusing" is the right word here?


----------



## hunarcy

bucs90 said:


> Keep guns from criminals? Well, we know the GOP's plan:
> 
> - Flood the streets with more guns
> - Slash the budget of the police department
> - Slash the budget of the jail
> - Blame results on Democrats




Actually, the GOP plan is to increase the budgets for police and jails so CRIMINALS can be arrested and punished for their crimes and leave law abiding gun owners alone!


----------



## Geaux4it

I/We don't need no stinking plan

-Geaux


----------



## kaz

bucs90 said:


> Keep guns from criminals? Well, we know the GOP's plan:
> 
> - Flood the streets with more guns
> - Slash the budget of the police department
> - Slash the budget of the jail
> - Blame results on Democrats



How are Republicans flooding the streets with guns exactly?  What does that mean?  And show a link with some actual proof Republicans are slashing police and jail budgets.



You're just making up anything that sounds good to you.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:
			
		

> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question based on a hypothetical situation.
> 
> If I have one of these guns, and get used to wearing the watch, what about those who notice it for what it is?   I wear a watch whether I am carrying or not.  So I could see the watch being on in places the gun is not allowed.  If I am in a mall or a courthouse or at a school function, and someone spots the watch, what would happen if they report it??   Would they assume I am armed in a NoGun zone?
> 
> 
> 
> Once we get beyond 1st-gen Smart Gun technology, to 2nd-gen stuff (complete with GPS, remote turn-off/disable, etc.), that probably won't even come into play...
> 
> If you're a bar-owner in the year 2040 and don't want guns in your bar, you go to Best Buy, and pick up a Business-Grade Gun-Disabler Black Box (by Sony) for $79.95, which broadcasts a Smart Gun Disable signal for any gun (except yours) passing through your front door ($59.95 with your Super Saver discount coupon, sale ends 05/31/2040 - installs in minutes - programmable and password protected - optional Police Alerter subroutine included, free for first year, $29.95 per year subscription for Police Alerter service afterwards).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only blocks legal guns.  Which means they are only blocking the guns of the people most likely to be law abiding anyway and leaving the criminals armed.
Click to expand...


This is the rub for the liberals who think you're keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals with the "smart guns."   Smart guns are only for homeowners or security or those groups that want them.  It's fine for that.

But that it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals is simply not true, it does nothing to eliminate existing guns or keep regular guns from being manufactured and imported into the United States.  That is what you're trying to get at in that thread, and it's a lie, I want to call you out in this one which is to address that specific question for your crap.  Smart guns have a use, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals isn't one of them other than a few scenarios which should be under the choice of the gun owner.


----------



## kaz

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage
> 
> Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?
> 
> Disgusting.



Don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll address it here where this is the point.  So what's his plan?  He doesn't say.

Seriously, you liberals believe it's more feasible to keep the millions of guns in the US, millions of guns outside the US, knives, explosives and other weapons out of the hands of nut jobs then it is that someone who was there and had a gun could stop him?

Even liberals can't be that clueless, you want government to be able to restrict guns because you're authoritarian leftists.  The people who die along the way are just the price of doing business.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage
> 
> Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll address it here where this is the point.  So what's his plan?  He doesn't say.
> 
> Seriously, you liberals believe it's more feasible to keep the millions of guns in the US, millions of guns outside the US, knives, explosives and other weapons out of the hands of nut jobs then it is that someone who was there and had a gun could stop him?
> 
> Even liberals can't be that clueless, you want government to be able to restrict guns because you're authoritarian leftists.  The people who die along the way are just the price of doing business.
Click to expand...


It is fairly disgusting that the Left tries to exploit such tragedies for its own political purposes.  They'll completely ignore the fact that the guy's family did nothing to stop him even though they knew he was having mental issues and that the system of "common sense gun laws" they foisted on us "to keep us safe" was totally ineffective!


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage
> 
> Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll address it here where this is the point.  So what's his plan?  He doesn't say.
> 
> Seriously, you liberals believe it's more feasible to keep the millions of guns in the US, millions of guns outside the US, knives, explosives and other weapons out of the hands of nut jobs then it is that someone who was there and had a gun could stop him?
> 
> Even liberals can't be that clueless, you want government to be able to restrict guns because you're authoritarian leftists.  The people who die along the way are just the price of doing business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fairly disgusting that the Left tries to exploit such tragedies for its own political purposes.  They'll completely ignore the fact that the guy's family did nothing to stop him even though they knew he was having mental issues and that the system of "common sense gun laws" they foisted on us "to keep us safe" was totally ineffective!
Click to expand...


It wasn't totally ineffective, the people who followed the law didn't have guns.  The murderer didn't follow the law.  Funny how that works, isn't it?


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll address it here where this is the point.  So what's his plan?  He doesn't say.
> 
> Seriously, you liberals believe it's more feasible to keep the millions of guns in the US, millions of guns outside the US, knives, explosives and other weapons out of the hands of nut jobs then it is that someone who was there and had a gun could stop him?
> 
> Even liberals can't be that clueless, you want government to be able to restrict guns because you're authoritarian leftists.  The people who die along the way are just the price of doing business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is fairly disgusting that the Left tries to exploit such tragedies for its own political purposes.  They'll completely ignore the fact that the guy's family did nothing to stop him even though they knew he was having mental issues and that the system of "common sense gun laws" they foisted on us "to keep us safe" was totally ineffective!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't totally ineffective, the people who followed the law didn't have guns.  The murderer didn't follow the law.  Funny how that works, isn't it?
Click to expand...


If the goal was to actually keep us safe, the law was totally ineffective.  But, it seems to me that the goal of the law was to make us all easy victims, so I have to agree with you


----------



## 1776

Felons aren't allowed to own a gun right now, so passing a law making sure other people that aren't felons can't own a gun isn't going to stop a felon.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:
			
		

> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> An that's why your argument fails.  It's based on the assumption that gun laws can't be enforced.  The truth is gun laws can work and do work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?  You mean like in Columbine, The Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, Newtown, ...
> 
> All gun free zones.  Yeah, gun laws work, they maximize the carnage.  If that's your goal, they work just fine.
Click to expand...


Hey Flopper, I started a whole thread for this.  Maybe you can do what none of the other liberals could, give us a plan.  How are we going to make gun laws work?  How are we going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Read the OP and solve the problem for us, please.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Alabama and Wyoming ought to have B-2 Bombers with nuclear weapons, and if you could afford one, you too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right?  Absolutely.  However, the government is not required to provide you with arms, it is just prohibited from preventing you from having them.  So acquiring those could be a bit tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose that depends on how one defines "right".  If you assume the Second gives you the right to own any weapon, I'm able to understand that opinion, though I believe it to be insane.
> 
> There is no way to control who should be able to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, or any weapon of war, unless people of good will and of uncommon sense see a problem and seek a soltuion.   Only one side seems to have these attributes, and that is those of us who want to have a rational debate on the problem.
Click to expand...


And what is your solution exactly in the context of the question by the OP?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Treat firearms like automobiles. Licenses, registrations and liability insurance. Ammunition sales subject to proof of insurance.


----------



## KissMy

LoneLaugher said:


> Treat firearms like automobiles. Licenses, registrations and liability insurance. Ammunition sales subject to proof of insurance.



My gun is insurance. You criminal idiots can buy your own insurance.


----------



## hunarcy

LoneLaugher said:


> Treat firearms like automobiles. Licenses, registrations and liability insurance. Ammunition sales subject to proof of insurance.



And aren't all those things infringements on my right?  What have I done to warrant having my rights infringed?


----------



## kaz

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't fear the militarized police as much as I am concerned about why they have to be so militarized. Maybe the easy availability of military type weapons for the citizenry has something to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiigghhhtttt, because bad guys won't be able to get guns if they are illegal.  That's why where they are illegal, like in blue inner cities, criminals can't get them...
> 
> LOL, what a ditz...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...so let's make it easier and easier to get them. Seriously, that's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Fuck, why do we have laws if criminals just fucking break them?
Click to expand...





			
				kaz said:
			
		

> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



So  [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION], what is YOUR plan exactly?


----------



## 2aguy

> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



Exactly how does this stop any crime or mass shootings...in Chicago, the gang members who are shooting up neighborhoods are not getting background checks, registering their guns or taking mandatory concealed carry classes...and obviously their criminal records aren't stopping them from getting, carrying and using guns to kill people...

The shooters in Columbine, the Colorado theater shooting, the two shootings at Fort Hood, Santa Barbara, the Navy Yard, Newton...the list goes on and on...were not stopped by background checks, registering guns or magazine limits...so again...

What do background checks, gun registration, magazine limits actually do to stop violent criminals or mass shooters...

I know one thing...they make it more expensive and complicated for law abiding people to own and carry guns...that is the real point isn't it...you guys don't care about gun violence...you just hate guns...


----------



## hunarcy

Billc said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how does this stop any crime or mass shootings...in Chicago, the gang members who are shooting up neighborhoods are not getting background checks, registering their guns or taking mandatory concealed carry classes...and obviously their criminal records aren't stopping them from getting, carrying and using guns to kill people...
> 
> The shooters in Columbine, the Colorado theater shooting, the two shootings at Fort Hood, Santa Barbara, the Navy Yard, Newton...the list goes on and on...were not stopped by background checks, registering guns or magazine limits...so again...
> 
> What do background checks, gun registration, magazine limits actually do to stop violent criminals or mass shooters...
> 
> I know one thing...they make it more expensive and complicated for law abiding people to own and carry guns...that is the real point isn't it...you guys don't care about gun violence...you just hate guns...
Click to expand...


Well, it might hurt someone's self esteem to punish them...better to punish a tool.


----------



## Crystalclear

It's not possible to keep guns from criminals, that's why law abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms, so that they can protect themselves against criminals.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The issue here is simple: People who lack the understanding of what it means to be a human being; in short, those people who have been indoctrinated by the Ideological Left.

If one takes the Population Centers which have long been governed under the principle-less notions of Left-think out of the equation, the United States is the safest place on earth.  And with no close second.


----------



## Chris

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The issue here is simple: People who lack the understanding of what it means to be a human being; in short, those people who have been indoctrinated by the Ideological Left.
> 
> If one takes the Population Centers which have long been governed under the principle-less notions of Left-think out of the equation, the United States is the safest place on earth.  And with no close second.



The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents - or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime.

Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States - Smart Politics


----------



## Chris

The states with the highest rate of gun violence per capita are:

1. Louisiana 
2. Arkansas 
3.Alabama 
4. Arizona 
5. Mississippi 
6. South Carolina 
7. New Mexico 
8. Missouri 
9. Alaska 
10. Georgia.

Almost all are Repubican states with loose gun laws.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Chris said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is simple: People who lack the understanding of what it means to be a human being; in short, those people who have been indoctrinated by the Ideological Left.
> 
> If one takes the Population Centers which have long been governed under the principle-less notions of Left-think out of the equation, the United States is the safest place on earth.  And with no close second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents - or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime.
> 
> Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States - Smart Politics
Click to expand...



ROFLMNAO!  ABSOLUTE NONSENSE... Total unmitigated balderdash. 

It's not even debatable, Chris.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

chris said:


> the states with the highest rate of gun violence per capita are:
> 
> 1. Louisiana
> 2. Arkansas
> 3.alabama
> 4. Arizona
> 5. Mississippi
> 6. South carolina
> 7. New mexico
> 8. Missouri
> 9. Alaska
> 10. Georgia.
> 
> Almost all are repubican states with loose gun laws.



Nonsense...


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> Treat firearms like automobiles. Licenses, registrations and liability insurance. Ammunition sales subject to proof of insurance.



So reading the original post, how does this answer the question?  So gun owners follow the law, criminals just buy illegal guns.  My question was that since teenagers can get all the pot they want, how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  This doesn't even address that?

As for requiring liability insurance to exercise our Constitutional rights, you OK with that for free speech in case someone commits slander?  They would be insured?  Or they have to STFU?  Or what about abortion, can we require people purchase a license and registration to get one?  What do you think?  Or is it just guns that are a Constitutional right government can sell you the right to exercise?


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> So  [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION], what is YOUR plan exactly?



Crickets, what about addressing the question?  You made a claim, what is your actual plan regarding the OP's post?


----------



## kaz

Chris said:


> The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents - or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime.
> 
> Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States - Smart Politics



And that proves what exactly?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
Click to expand...


Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?


----------



## 2aguy

Chris said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is simple: People who lack the understanding of what it means to be a human being; in short, those people who have been indoctrinated by the Ideological Left.
> 
> If one takes the Population Centers which have long been governed under the principle-less notions of Left-think out of the equation, the United States is the safest place on earth.  And with no close second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The average violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault) in 2008 for the 28 states that voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election was 389 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 22 states that voted for John McCain was 412 incidents per 100,000 residents - or a 5.8 percent higher incidence of violent crime.
> 
> Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States - Smart Politics
Click to expand...



Too bad you and the article are wrong....in the Red states that have high crime rates...their cities are run by democrats...for example...Tennessee...the 6 largest cities are controlled by democrats...and Memphis is one of them and one of the most violent cities in the country....also....Red states line our southern border...where the drug cartels run drugs and illegal immigrants into the country....Red states are also our southern port states...again where drug cartels run drugs through our country......

24 out of the 25 most violent cities in the U.S. have been run by democrats....some of those are red states, but the cities are run by democrats...and that increases the crime rate...since democrats underfund, understaff and undermine the police and then throw in democrat social policies...and you have violence breeding grounds....in Red States....

that is why some Red states have higher rates...possibly.....if the article isn't simply lying...as anti gun nuts usually do....


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
Click to expand...



Joe's real problem isn't guns...it is people...he is afraid of them.....he thinks they are too emotional and can't control themselves...he is essentially projecting his attributes onto other people.....since he can't control people...especially criminals, he tries to control the only people he can sort of control...the law abiding people who will actually obey any silly law he wants enacted.  To control them....he wants to disarm them...that way he thinks he will be safer....of course this is so wrong...but his underlying fears are irrational, so his solution will be irrational.....


----------



## AquaAthena

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Not yet anyway. Knives are in fashion, too, and beheadings.


----------



## 2aguy

Just a quick look....a lot of the 24 most violent cities are in red states...but controlled by democrats.....

Cleveland is a city that goes back and forth between Republicans and democrats the rest are controlled by dems....

Most Dangerous Cities In America - Business Insider

compare the Red states to the most dangerous cities...you will have to look up the mayors yourself....some are hard to find......but 24 of the 25 have been controlled by democrats...some going as far back as the 1940s....

Red states and blue states - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## kaz

Billc said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Joe's real problem isn't guns...it is people...he is afraid of them.....he thinks they are too emotional and can't control themselves...he is essentially projecting his attributes onto other people.....since he can't control people...especially criminals, he tries to control the only people he can sort of control...the law abiding people who will actually obey any silly law he wants enacted.  To control them....he wants to disarm them...that way he thinks he will be safer....of course this is so wrong...but his underlying fears are irrational, so his solution will be irrational.....
Click to expand...


Great insight.  People who are afraid often lash out in anger.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
Click to expand...


Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
_
Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
Click to expand...



Yeah....looked thru the source.....not helpful......


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....looked thru the source.....not helpful......
Click to expand...


You proved one thing, you're a liar.

Now I have one question needing an answer, is your ignorance willful, or is it congenital?


----------



## 2aguy

Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....

Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....


----------



## 2aguy

> Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide



Except....in Japan....where they have absolute gun control and twice the suicide rate.....it isn't guns....it is the desire to kill oneself....and if no guns were in the home...they would use pills, jump in front of trains, or off bridges and buildings...just like the Japanese, Russians and French do and all the other countries that have strict gun control and higher suicide rates....this is why your source is crap....


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
Click to expand...

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.


----------



## 2aguy

> The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”


- 

From your own source.........


----------



## Lakhota

> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*



Plan?  Somewhat like speed limits.  Can't catch 'em all - but it helps.


----------



## 2aguy

The most effective plan is long jail sentences for gun crimes....but for some reason the democrats object to this....it is one reason Japanese organized criminals don't carry guns.....they are afraid of long jail sentences....

stop and frisk use to keep gun crime down in New York....the thugs didn't want to carry cause they knew they would be stopped and frisked...and arrested....but that is over now....so expect their murder rate to go up.....


----------



## Ernie S.

What's that, redskin? is 1,440 ft/sec too fast?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....



I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.

By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.


----------



## 2aguy

And you are a dumb fuck....is that willful or congenital......coward....

your source, which I quoted from is crap......you don't like that so you call me a liar....hence you are a dumb fuck.....


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:  "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"



Dude, it always amazes me how liberals don't grasp how our system operates.  Right can be removes only with ... wait for it ... due process of law.  Life liberty and property can be removed with due process of law.  Voting can be removed with due process of law.  The right to own a gun can be removed with due process of law.  How do you not know that?

As for the rest of your post, it's a logical fallacy called begging the question.  My question is how laws that only keep guns away from people who follow the law are going to protect anyone.  Assuming the laws will work which is my challenge for you to show doesn't answer that.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....looked thru the source.....not helpful......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved one thing, you're a liar.
> 
> Now I have one question needing an answer, is your ignorance willful, or is it congenital?
Click to expand...


Maybe you could be more specific?


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plan?  Somewhat like speed limits.  Can't catch 'em all - but it helps.
Click to expand...


Does it?  It helps murderers to ensure no one is shooting back.  You know, like the Washington Navy Yard where the military guy who knew there would be no guns went there and took out the only guy who he knew had one first then fired at people he knew were unarmed thanks to Slick Willy.

Why do shooters keep going to gun free zones?  Virginia Tech, Colombine, Newtown, Aurora, malls, why is that?  Coincidence?  

Maybe you think you are safer when government ensures you are unarmed without doing anything about the criminals being unarmed, but, we already know that logic isn't your ... um ... forte ...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
Click to expand...


Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
Click to expand...


LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.  

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege). 

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence. 

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.


----------



## Lakhota

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plan?  Somewhat like speed limits.  Can't catch 'em all - but it helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?  It helps murderers to ensure no one is shooting back.  You know, like the Washington Navy Yard where the military guy who knew there would be no guns went there and took out the only guy who he knew had one first then fired at people he knew were unarmed thanks to Slick Willy.
> 
> Why do shooters keep going to gun free zones?  Virginia Tech, Colombine, Newtown, Aurora, malls, why is that?  Coincidence?
> 
> Maybe you think you are safer when government ensures you are unarmed without doing anything about the criminals being unarmed, but, we already know that logic isn't your ... um ... forte ...
Click to expand...


Dimwit, who said anything about disarming the populace?  Do speed limits and associated enforcements prevent legal driving?  No, they don't.  They just help make the highways safer for all of us.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
Click to expand...


As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
Click to expand...



See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...



> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.




There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....

And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....


----------



## 2aguy

Okay Wry Catcher....your other anti gun nut fellow travelers haven't answered this question....maybe you will....

A woman was killed at the Chicago Nordstrom store....her ex boyfreind was stalking her for a year, broke some of her ribs and put a gun in her mouth as well as calling and threatening her and her family over the course of this year....

The police could not help her...the courts would not give her a restraining order....which wouldn't have stopped the attack anyway....

He walked into her job...at a gun free zone...Nordstroms...and shot her twice, killing her...

Okay, Wry Catcher....how do you help keep this woman alive...bearing in mind the other Illinois woman killed by her husband with a $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin where she was hiding from him....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
Click to expand...



Oh.....so according to the democrats you like to just walk up and kill minorities.....do you vote democrat?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher...I see you are still online...please be brave and unlike your anti gun nut comrades...answer the question.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> From your own source.........
Click to expand...


Wow, you're really are not very bright.  Did the first plane fly, did many attempts result in failures, on the ground or in the air?  Variables, dependent and independent need to be factored in, in any rational discussion.

Your responses proves the NRA effort to safely train is a failure too:  " there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms."

I haven't argued that a panacea exists, though we now an epidemic exists in our country which is not a world wide pandemic.  We need to have a knowledgeable, informed, rational discussion on the issue of guns and their control.  That won't happen with someone like you or kaz or the others who refuse to admit what exists today needs improvement.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher...I see you are still online...please be brave and unlike your anti gun nut comrades...answer the question.....



Ask the question, and I will respond.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> From your own source.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're really are not very bright.  Did the first plane fly, did many attempts result in failures, on the ground or in the air?  Variables, dependent and independent need to be factored in, in any rational discussion.
> 
> Your responses proves the NRA effort to safely train is a failure too:  " there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms."
> 
> I haven't argued that a panacea exists, though we now an epidemic exists in our country which is not a world wide pandemic.  We need to have a knowledgeable, informed, rational discussion on the issue of guns and their control.  That won't happen with someone like you or kaz or the others who refuse to admit what exists today needs improvement.
Click to expand...



We have 8-9,000 murders a year concentrated in democrat controlled inner cities fueled by gang violence...out of a country of over 310 million people....

at the same time each year 1.6 million times a year guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

8-9,000 gun murders vs. 1.6 million times they stop violent criminal attack and save lives in a country of 310 million people.....

not a problem..........but it does scare democrats.....who have created the inner city killing fields they live next to.....but now the monsters they have created are escaping containment....as per Rahm Emmanuels son getting robbed in front of his home.....now what do they do.....?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher...I see you are still online...please be brave and unlike your anti gun nut comrades...answer the question.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the question, and I will respond.
Click to expand...



Okay Wry Catcher....your other anti gun nut fellow travelers haven't answered this question....maybe you will....
A woman was killed at the Chicago Nordstrom store....her ex boyfreind was stalking her for a year, broke some of her ribs and put a gun in her mouth as well as calling and threatening her and her family over the course of this year....

The police could not help her...the courts would not give her a restraining order....which wouldn't have stopped the attack anyway....

He walked into her job...at a gun free zone...Nordstroms...and shot her twice, killing her...

Okay, Wry Catcher....how do you help keep this woman alive...bearing in mind the other Illinois woman killed by her husband with a $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin where she was hiding from him....


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
Click to expand...

I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?

Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!

BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> From your own source.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wow, you're really are not very bright.  Did the first plane fly, did many attempts result in failures, on the ground or in the air?*  Variables, dependent and independent need to be factored in, in any rational discussion.
> 
> Your responses proves the NRA effort to safely train is a failure too:  " there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms."
> 
> I haven't argued that a panacea exists, though we now an epidemic exists in our country which is not a world wide pandemic.  We need to have a knowledgeable, informed, rational discussion on the issue of guns and their control.  That won't happen with someone like you or kaz or the others who refuse to admit what exists today needs improvement.
Click to expand...

Really??? The fact that all of the anti-gun lobby's efforts to abate gun violence hasn't worked is rational for more anti gun laws?

We know that cancer can't be cured with a Band-Aid, but by your logic, more Band-Aids will end cancer immediately.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....
> 
> And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....
Click to expand...


I ran my agencies domestic violence unit, wrote and manged two DOJ VAWA Grants and managed the public-private sector collaboration to reduce DV.  As I said above, there is no panacea to fix all the ills in our society.  

I do not believe in confiscating every gun in America, but I do believe the NRA is a terrorist organization and those who support its efforts to oppose any form of gun control - and scapegoat the mentally ill in the process - are evil.  

I don't use that word lightly, I've read my share of corner's reports, sat on a regional death review panel for minors and adults, and have a professional understanding of man's inhumanity to man.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....
> 
> And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran my agencies domestic violence unit, wrote and manged two DOJ VAWA Grants and managed the public-private sector collaboration to reduce DV.  As I said above, there is no panacea to fix all the ills in our society.
> 
> I do not believe in confiscating every gun in America, but I do believe the NRA is a terrorist organization and those who support its efforts to oppose any form of gun control - and scapegoat the mentally ill in the process - are evil.
> 
> I don't use that word lightly, I've read my share of corner's reports, sat on a regional death review panel for minors and adults, and have a professional understanding of man's inhumanity to man.
Click to expand...



I see you didn't answer the question....don't worry...the other anti gun, nuts didn't either.....

they simply support the very policies that keep this woman disarmed in front of an aggressive, nut killer.....


----------



## Carib Gyal

They've released the Delta Airlines gun runner pics. As of yet, they haven't said if they were demanding registration or a two-week waiting period.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own.  We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?
> 
> Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!
> 
> BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
> I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
> I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.
Click to expand...


I don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?
> 
> Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!
> 
> BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
> I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
> I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.
Click to expand...



What makes sense about gun registration...it doesn't stop gun crime...it didn't stop any of the mass shooters....what exactly do you think it does?  Please...no anti gunner has been able to explain what registration does to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year or all of the public school shootings in gun free zones.....maybe you can....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> 
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....
> 
> And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran my agencies domestic violence unit, wrote and manged two DOJ VAWA Grants and managed the public-private sector collaboration to reduce DV.  As I said above, there is no panacea to fix all the ills in our society.
> 
> I do not believe in confiscating every gun in America, but I do believe the NRA is a terrorist organization and those who support its efforts to oppose any form of gun control - and scapegoat the mentally ill in the process - are evil.
> 
> I don't use that word lightly, I've read my share of corner's reports, sat on a regional death review panel for minors and adults, and have a professional understanding of man's inhumanity to man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I see you didn't answer the question....don't worry...the other anti gun, nuts didn't either.....
> 
> they simply support the very policies that keep this woman disarmed in front of an aggressive, nut killer.....
Click to expand...


Stop being a smug asshole, direct me to the post by number so I can try to figure out what the hell you're trying to prove.  Or don't and continue to be the ignorant, arrogant asshole you've proven to be.


----------



## 2aguy

I stated my question about the woman shot at the gun free zone at Nordstroms.....what do you recommend a woman who is being stalked by an ex husband or boyfriend do...when the police can't help her and a restraining order does nothing....

What should she do...?

I see....start with the name calling so you don't have to answer the question....at least you responded in that way...you anti gun buddies didn't even do that...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> 
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?
> 
> Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!
> 
> BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
> I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
> I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What makes sense about gun registration...it doesn't stop gun crime...it didn't stop any of the mass shooters....what exactly do you think it does?  Please...no anti gunner has been able to explain what registration does to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year or all of the public school shootings in gun free zones.....maybe you can....
Click to expand...


When did I use the word "registration"?  I said a license is what I support, and I also said (within reason) I don't care what you have in your home or what you do in your bedroom).  

Stating I supported gun registration is a lie.  And lying is one reason the Crazy Right Wing isn't taken seriously.


----------



## 2aguy

Try post 3242 to read the question again......


----------



## 2aguy

> I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that. It simply makes sense.



Oh, sorry...my mistake...I thought it read registration.....so....

let me change that one word....for the same question...

What makes sense about gun owner liscensing...it doesn't stop gun crime...it didn't stop any of the mass shooters....what exactly do you think it does? Please...no anti gunner has been able to explain what licensing would  do to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year or all of the public school shootings in gun free zones.....maybe you can....

How about answering that....?


----------



## 2aguy

the liars are the anti gunners......and they also like dead victims...helps their cause immensely....


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plan?  Somewhat like speed limits.  Can't catch 'em all - but it helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it?  It helps murderers to ensure no one is shooting back.  You know, like the Washington Navy Yard where the military guy who knew there would be no guns went there and took out the only guy who he knew had one first then fired at people he knew were unarmed thanks to Slick Willy.
> 
> Why do shooters keep going to gun free zones?  Virginia Tech, Colombine, Newtown, Aurora, malls, why is that?  Coincidence?
> 
> Maybe you think you are safer when government ensures you are unarmed without doing anything about the criminals being unarmed, but, we already know that logic isn't your ... um ... forte ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dimwit, who said anything about disarming the populace?  Do speed limits and associated enforcements prevent legal driving?  No, they don't.  They just help make the highways safer for all of us.
Click to expand...


You're being very vague about what you are arguing.  Suppose government just requires us to register, pay a fee and get a license to exercise free speech or for us to be safe from warrantless searches?  Does that work for you?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
Click to expand...


I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?
> 
> Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!
> 
> BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
> I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
> I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.
Click to expand...


So legal gun owners register, criminals buy black market guns.  And you made the problem better how?


----------



## 2aguy

They don't understand that just because a policy sounds like it makes sense, doesn't mean it actually makes sense....in the real world....back ground checks, magazine limits, licensing gun owners, registering guns.....they all sound reasonable...but they don't actually do anything the gun grabbers bitch and moan about...gun violence......

None of those things would stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year, or stop the public shootings....and yet...they still want them.....insanity....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Okay Wry Catcher....your other anti gun nut fellow travelers haven't answered this question....maybe you will....
> 
> A woman was killed at the Chicago Nordstrom store....her ex boyfreind was stalking her for a year, broke some of her ribs and put a gun in her mouth as well as calling and threatening her and her family over the course of this year....
> 
> The police could not help her...the courts would not give her a restraining order....which wouldn't have stopped the attack anyway....
> 
> He walked into her job...at a gun free zone...Nordstroms...and shot her twice, killing her...
> 
> Okay, Wry Catcher....how do you help keep this woman alive...bearing in mind the other Illinois woman killed by her husband with a $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin where she was hiding from him....



In my jurisdiction (in fact in all of California) there is a mandatory arrest policy, for Terrorist threats (renamed since I retired, but credible threats), Stalking and Domestic Abuse. 

As part of our public/private collaboration, and our policies, the victim would have free access to an attorney who would obtain for the victim the protective order, if the victim reported a violation of the order, he (99.9% are men) would have his bail or OR revoked (if he were granted such, most are not and remain in custody); and a BOLO would be issued along with a no bail bench warrant, and the offender would be brought into custody ASAP.

When convicted the Probation Dept., Sheriff's Dept and each police agency would work together to enforce the order of probation preventing contact between the victim and the perp, and any contact would result in a probation violation with the probationer placed in custody w/o bail until his hearing.

Orders of probation included search and seizure (which, btw, do not require a warrant since probation is a privilege and can be rejected by the offender; thus, by accepting probation the offender waives his 4th Amendment rights, as well as his 2nd); a 52-week anger management course, drug and alcohol testing and weekly face to face meetings with Probation Staff.  Many would be required to appear in court for progress reports, failure to appear or to appear and receive a negative probation report led to additional sanctions up to an including a commitment to the State Prison. 

While not a panacea we had two deputies killed and one police officer during my time on that job and two children (the biological children of the asshole who killed them) No female victims were killed.  We did many arrests, confiscated guns and our judges did send a number off to State Prison when probation convinced the court the offender violated the court order and represented a credible threat to the victim, her family or the community.

So yeah, some stuff was done and done well.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
Click to expand...


We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
Click to expand...


Who believes what isn't an argument.  Look dude, my OP question is very clear.  What about actually answering it instead of telling us you have guns and who thinks what?


----------



## Lakhota

The only outcome that will satisfy kaz is ZERO gun control.  None.  Nada.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who believes what isn't an argument.  Look dude, my OP question is very clear.  What about actually answering it instead of telling us you have guns and who thinks what?
Click to expand...


All threads evolve, that said and I've said there is no panacea in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

But let's try this analogy:

MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America.  Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often.  MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.

The same is true with those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, the vast majority are not criminals until they misuse their gun.  Hiding behind the Second Amendment you and others claim nothing can be done until someone is killed or maimed - I find that to be insane, selfish and callous.

Since legislators are best convinced by arguments framed in campaign donations, I have decided the NRA is a terrorist organization, simply because they dominate the debate in Congress and in State Houses around the nation to put forth their agenda   _Guns good, gun control bad and if you disagree we will support your opponent._


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who believes what isn't an argument.  Look dude, my OP question is very clear.  What about actually answering it instead of telling us you have guns and who thinks what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All threads evolve, that said and I've said there is no panacea in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> But let's try this analogy:
> 
> MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America.  Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often.  MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.
> 
> The same is true with those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, the vast majority are not criminals until they misuse their gun.  Hiding behind the Second Amendment you and others claim nothing can be done until someone is killed or maimed - I find that to be insane, selfish and callous.
> 
> Since legislators are best convinced by arguments framed in campaign donations, I have decided the NRA is a terrorist organization, simply because they dominate the debate in Congress and in State Houses around the nation to put forth their agenda   _Guns good, gun control bad and if you disagree we will support your opponent._
Click to expand...


Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who believes what isn't an argument.  Look dude, my OP question is very clear.  What about actually answering it instead of telling us you have guns and who thinks what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All threads evolve, that said and I've said there is no panacea in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> But let's try this analogy:
> 
> MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America.  Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often.  MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.
> 
> The same is true with those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, the vast majority are not criminals until they misuse their gun.  Hiding behind the Second Amendment you and others claim nothing can be done until someone is killed or maimed - I find that to be insane, selfish and callous.
> 
> Since legislators are best convinced by arguments framed in campaign donations, I have decided the NRA is a terrorist organization, simply because they dominate the debate in Congress and in State Houses around the nation to put forth their agenda   _Guns good, gun control bad and if you disagree we will support your opponent._
Click to expand...


Again, you keep citing who is on your side, that isn't an argument.  Since any kid can get pot, how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  That is the question, are


Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who believes what isn't an argument.  Look dude, my OP question is very clear.  What about actually answering it instead of telling us you have guns and who thinks what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All threads evolve, that said and I've said there is no panacea in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> But let's try this analogy:
> 
> MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America.  Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often.  MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.
> 
> The same is true with those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, the vast majority are not criminals until they misuse their gun.  Hiding behind the Second Amendment you and others claim nothing can be done until someone is killed or maimed - I find that to be insane, selfish and callous.
> 
> Since legislators are best convinced by arguments framed in campaign donations, I have decided the NRA is a terrorist organization, simply because they dominate the debate in Congress and in State Houses around the nation to put forth their agenda   _Guns good, gun control bad and if you disagree we will support your opponent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## 2aguy

> MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America. Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often. MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.



So....they license drinkers?   You can't drink unless you get a permit from the government?  Do they require all drivers to give a breathalizer before they drive?  That is what you want for all legal gun owners....right?  They stop drunk driving by heavy penalties for those who are caught...and educating people about those penalties....except you want are not advocating the same thing for gun owners.....you want to judge them before they commit crimes.....


----------



## 2aguy

The NRA is number 60 out of all time campaign donors....and the list of those who support gun control...unions and such, contribute far more money than the NRA does....

Heavy Hitters Top All-Time Donors 1989-2014 OpenSecrets

59 Pfizer Inc $20,837,810 35% 64%
60 National Rifle Assn $20,596,307 16% 82%
61 Club for Growth $19,780,087 0% 96%


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....
> 
> Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right?  You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun owner, I like myself.  I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.
> 
> By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise.  I do suspect otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
Click to expand...



and most regular police...the non politically appointed police officers at the street level support people carrying guns for self defense....I'll side with the officers who don't owe their jobs to gun grabbing mayors....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America. Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often. MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So....they license drinkers?   You can't drink unless you get a permit from the government?  Do they require all drivers to give a breathalizer before they drive?  That is what you want for all legal gun owners....right?  They stop drunk driving by heavy penalties for those who are caught...and educating people about those penalties....except you want are not advocating the same thing for gun owners.....you want to judge them before they commit crimes.....
Click to expand...


Damn you're really dumb.  Or maybe you're simply obtuse, or pretend to be.  In any event you pretend to know what I mean to fit your agenda.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Wry Catcher said:


> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.


What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?

How will it work?


----------



## 2aguy

and you are a moron....and your stupid ideas for gun control only work to make people victims of the monsters...you stupid twit....


----------



## 2aguy

Little-Acorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
Click to expand...



His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Click to expand...


Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.

That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.

Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but these gun nuts right to guns all types of arms shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.

There is no way that allowing a State to license anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his custody or control a gun, if we assume the bar for such ownership is established by a vote of the people and such license can be suspended for cause, is a great burden to anyone.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
Click to expand...

OK, let's play.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
Click to expand...



We have all the gun control we need right now....it just needs to be enforced.....morons like you want more....and morons like you are just dumb....background checks, gun registration, licensing gun owners...would not have stopped Sandy Hook, you twit.....the mother bought her guns legally....and if your dumb ideas had been law her guns....which were background checked...would have been Universally background checked, they would have been registered, and she would have been licensed..........and then her son would have killed her and taken those guns anyway...

You are the one who isn't bright....you are like a bird attracted to shiny objects...you hear "universal background checks" "gun registration" and "licensing gun owners" and "common sense gun control" and you have no idea what they mean or what they would do to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders a year, or any of the mass shootings....you just jump on them because they sound good in your head....

Your dumb ideas would not have stopped, Columbine, the 2 Fort Hood Shootings, the Colorado theater shootings, Virginia tech, the Navy yard shooting...

and you are a fool to think that you can make laws that stop people intent on breaking them...who don't care about the consequences......and you are not Tom Cruise and are not part of "pre-crime"

Laws can only deter law abiding citizens from breaking them, and punish those who do....

Focus you misguided energy on enforcing those laws and locking up those who break them....that would be useful...

Your silly "some form of gun control"  stupidity does nothing to save lives....and endangers lives of innocent people...

Merry Christmas.....


----------



## 2aguy

> some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.



No, it isn't insane...the media wing of the democrat party hyping every shooting in order to promote gun control...that is insane....

we have 8-9,000 gun murders each year, concentrated in inner cities....amazingly controlled by the democrats.....and they take place in small, multi block areas in those cities......the rest of the country is the same as Europe....

so....8-9,000 gun murders in a country of over 310 million people......

Each year we average 1.6 million times law abiding citizens use guns to STOP violent criminal attack and save lives...

1.6 million times vs. 8-9,000......which number is bigger and better......

But...the media wing of the democrat party only focuses on the misuse of guns because they also have an irrational fear of people....but all of their best attempts to control people fail...especially criminals who ignore all of their stupid laws....in particular their stupid gun control laws....however.....they focus on guns because they think they can control guns...and therefore have some control over the people they fear.....

we do not have a gun problem in this country....we have a criminal problem in this country and the irrational anti gun nuts want innocent people to be  victims...and raped and beaten and stabbed and murdered....because they fear guns.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Click to expand...


OK, let's do that.  Any person over the age of 12 who commits any felony, misdemeanor or has been civilly committed to a mental hospital as a danger to themselves or others shall have both of their hands removed.

Any more stupid questions Rabbit?  How about we excuse those who violate the law of gravity, we don't want to be too harsh.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, let's do that.  Any person over the age of 12 who commits any felony, misdemeanor or has been civilly committed to a mental hospital as a danger to themselves or others shall have both of their hands removed.
> 
> Any more stupid question Rabbit?  How about we excuse those who violate the law of gravity, we don't want to be too harsh.
Click to expand...



Of course........you can't or won't list what you really want......if your solutions are so grand......why won't you list them....you are a fool....you know they won't work......and you are embarrassed when you are actually called out.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have all the gun control we need right now....it just needs to be enforced.....morons like you want more....and morons like you are just dumb....background checks, gun registration, licensing gun owners...would not have stopped Sandy Hook, you twit.....the mother bought her guns legally....and if your dumb ideas had been law her guns....which were background checked...would have been Universally background checked, they would have been registered, and she would have been licensed..........and then her son would have killed her and taken those guns anyway...
> 
> You are the one who isn't bright....you are like a bird attracted to shiny objects...you hear "universal background checks" "gun registration" and "licensing gun owners" and "common sense gun control" and you have no idea what they mean or what they would do to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders a year, or any of the mass shootings....you just jump on them because they sound good in your head....
> 
> Your dumb ideas would not have stopped, Columbine, the 2 Fort Hood Shootings, the Colorado theater shootings, Virginia tech, the Navy yard shooting...
> 
> and you are a fool to think that you can make laws that stop people intent on breaking them...who don't care about the consequences......and you are not Tom Cruise and are not part of "pre-crime"
> 
> Laws can only deter law abiding citizens from breaking them, and punish those who do....
> 
> Focus you misguided energy on enforcing those laws and locking up those who break them....that would be useful...
> 
> Your silly "some form of gun control"  stupidity does nothing to save lives....and endangers lives of innocent people...
> 
> Merry Christmas.....
Click to expand...


Please define my "some form of gun control", quote me if you like.  Then consider, I mean really think about gun control, and let me know if you would accept any form of gun control.

Or do you believe any regulations, about the economy or guns or the right of same sex couples to marry or of a women's right to an abortion are not okay?  Is it only guns, and only because there is a Second Amendment interpreted by past Supreme Courts?  Prove to me you're not either a simpleton or a hypocrite.


----------



## 2aguy

Still waiting wry catcher.....

Felons....no guns....non violent felons could possibly apply for gun rights after 10 years with no crimes....

Mentally Ill...needs work...if we are not careful, anti gunners will use talking to a grief counselor as a reason to deny a normal person their gun rights....

Current gun laws need to be enforced...

No magazine limits....

no assault weapon ban

no gun registration

no licensing for gun owners....

I would allow the background checks we have now.....they don't work but you anti gun nuts want them for some reason and I will allow you that sop to your craziness....

that's about it....


----------



## 2aguy

Abortion....only for the life of the mother, and it would be her decision, especially if she wants to risk her life to deliver her child.....otherwise it is just outright murder of a human being....but let's try to do that in another thread.....


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, let's do that.  Any person over the age of 12 who commits any felony, misdemeanor or has been civilly committed to a mental hospital as a danger to themselves or others shall have both of their hands removed.
> 
> Any more stupid questions Rabbit?  How about we excuse those who violate the law of gravity, we don't want to be too harsh.
Click to expand...

All right. Then you actually dont have any concrete proposals that would effectively reduce the rate of crime involving guns.
Next.


----------



## The Rabbi

Billc said:


> Still waiting wry catcher.....
> 
> Felons....no guns....non violent felons could possibly apply for gun rights after 10 years with no crimes....
> 
> Mentally Ill...needs work...if we are not careful, anti gunners will use talking to a grief counselor as a reason to deny a normal person their gun rights....
> 
> Current gun laws need to be enforced...
> 
> No magazine limits....
> 
> no assault weapon ban
> 
> no gun registration
> 
> no licensing for gun owners....
> 
> I would allow the background checks we have now.....they don't work but you anti gun nuts want them for some reason and I will allow you that sop to your craziness....
> 
> that's about it....


He has no answer.  His idea is merely to "stick it" to lawful gun owners because he resents them for whatever reason.  He isnt interested in a solution to a problem, only a victory over people he considers enemies.


----------



## 2aguy

Would it count if he just repeats favorite word groupings of anti gunners....."licensing" "background checks"....and so on......would he have to actually show how they would stop gun crime or can he just keep repeating those words?


----------



## The Rabbi

Billc said:


> Would it count if he just repeats favorite word groupings of anti gunners....."licensing" "background checks"....and so on......would he have to actually show how they would stop gun crime or can he just keep repeating those words?


Well thats where he's headed.  Its the old "we have to do something.  Here's something.  Let's do it"approach that's failed for 40 years.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Still waiting wry catcher.....
> 
> Felons....no guns....non violent felons could possibly apply for gun rights after 10 years with no crimes....
> 
> Mentally Ill...needs work...if we are not careful, anti gunners will use talking to a grief counselor as a reason to deny a normal person their gun rights....
> 
> Current gun laws need to be enforced...
> 
> No magazine limits....
> 
> no assault weapon ban
> 
> no gun registration
> 
> no licensing for gun owners....
> 
> I would allow the background checks we have now.....they don't work but you anti gun nuts want them for some reason and I will allow you that sop to your craziness....
> 
> that's about it....



I have.  

Current gun laws are enforced.  What evidence do you have that they are not?

Why does any citizen need a large capacity magazine and speed loader?

Why does any citizen need an assault weapon (that is a weapon designed to kill many humans as rapidly as possible?

Not all felons are violent, some crimes of violence are misdemeanors (assault, battery, domestic violence, even ADW is a wobbler).

Background checks aren't extensive, if a license is required, I would have the offender printed and the prints be placed separately from criminal records, and recorded solely to notify the licensing agency if and when the licensee come to the attention of law enforcement.  At that time the license could be suspended pending further information.  If the information reveals the offender committed a serious violent felony, and act of domestic violence, etc.


----------



## 2aguy

> Current gun laws are enforced. What evidence do you have that they are not?
> 
> Why does any citizen need a large capacity magazine and speed loader?
> 
> Why does any citizen need an assault weapon (that is a weapon designed to kill many humans as rapidly as possible?
> 
> Not all felons are violent, some crimes of violence are misdemeanors (assault, battery, domestic violence, even ADW is a wobbler).
> 
> Background checks aren't extensive, if a license is required, I would have the offender printed and the prints be placed separately from criminal records, and recorded solely to notify the licensing agency if and when the licensee come to the attention of law enforcement. At that time the license could be suspended pending further information. If the information reveals the offender committed a serious violent felony, and act of domestic violence, etc.



Gun laws....in Chicago....they don't prosecute gun crimes.....the guys who shot up a park last year had gun crimes in their backgrounds but were given boot camps instead of long prison sentences due to weapons charges....

Magazines, speed loaders and assault weapons....first, they haven't broken the law, 2nd, the citizens need to have access to the basic weapon of the U.S. infantry....to keep the government from turning on the people...

The background check for the Santa Barbara killer....he had one done for each of the 3 weapons he bought.....the 8-9,000 gun murders a year.....current background checks didn't stop them....and stolen guns or guns bought for gang members by girlfriends and family members  won't be stopped by background checks either....

Criminals do not get permits, licenses....only law abiding citizens do.....again.....how does that stop any crime.....

When someone breaks the law with a gun...arrest them and prosecute them for the gun crime...put them away for a long, long time......that is effective gun control.....

And more on Magazine limits.....the killer at Santa Barbara....used legally mandated 10 round magazines...the limits didn't stop him....

The Sandy Hook shooter...changed magazines frequently, using combat reloading techniques so magazine limits wouldn't have mattered or stopped him.....

Also...he had pistols with him....so taking away an the AR-15 wouldn't have saved any lives.....

magazine limits, gun bans....pointless and only punish the very people who don't abuse them....


----------



## 2aguy

One thing I would do as well....end gun free zones......they simply allow killers to kill unmolested until the police can arrive...allow legally armed private citizens to defend themselves...it will stop mass killers when a lawfully armed citizen is at the scene....


----------



## 2aguy

And more on magazine bans.....didn't stop Columbine or Virginia tech....

Gun Control Facts Why a High Capacity Magazine Ban Would Not Prevent Mass Shootings - Mic



> *Would so-called “high capacity” magazine bans prevent mass shootings?*
> 
> It doesn't seem likely such a ban would prevent mass shootings. Consider that one of the Columbineshooters used a Hi-Point 995 carbine rifle, which uses 10 round magazines. He just carried 13 of them. Similarly, the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and 17 magazines – mostly of 10-round (but also some 15-round). Two of the highest profile mass shootings in recent history and shooters used 10-round magazines; they just brought a lot of them. These magazines would not have been affected at all by the proposed ban.





> *How long does it take to change a magazine?*
> 
> Magazine changes can be very, very rapid, taking just seconds. The Columbine shooters had all the time in the world to reload and reload. They shot in the cafeteria, they entered the library, the went back to the cafeteria, then they went back to the library, and finally the science area. The shooting started at 11:19am and they continued their carnage until they committed suicide at approximately 12:08pm - or nearly *an hour.*


----------



## 2aguy

Also...on standard magazines....when you are attacked...you do not have any idea how many rounds you will have to fire to save yourself or your family.....if you are a law abiding citizen, there is no sane reason to limit how many bullets you can carry to defend yourself....

If you have more than you need.....who cares...you did not use them to break the law....and if you need them...you had them....


----------



## Wry Catcher

So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:


It's my Second Amendment Right!  
Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
Honest citizens will become criminals;
Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk


----------



## 2aguy

> Why does any citizen need an assault weapon (that is a weapon designed to kill many humans as rapidly as possible?



An AR-15, in 5.56, the boogyman of the anti gunners....is a good home defense weapon....it is essentially a weapon platform...you can put a light and a laser on it and you have 3 points of contact with the weapon making it more accurate to shoot than a pistol....also, the light round breaks up in dry wall...unlike most pistol ammo, which means you won't kill a neighbor if you shoot it in your home....

Also...if you go hiking in remote areas, you have a good, multipurpose weapon.....it may save your life against any kind of monster you might encounter...especially on the border where cartel members actually have military grade rifles....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk




Um.....dishonest much.....I believe enforcing existing laws is more than enough gun control...it is a right, even if you hate that fact, and those who push these laws intentionally know they lead to bans, and the ones, like you don't know any better, and registration is necessary for "Universal Background Checks" it is the only way to track guns not in the system....right?...and if you don't register your guns....you are a felon....right?....and there are currently more false positives in the NICS background check system than actual criminals stopped.....

3 day waiting periods, gun permit processes, and carry permit processes deny guns to women who may need guns to defend against ex husbands and boyfriends intent on killing them...

and not one of those measures stops actual criminals......why don't you see that?


----------



## 2aguy

> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;



You know....there is history on this....it isn't just pretend.....right?


----------



## 2aguy

NewYork SAFE act makes criminals out of law abiding citizens...

As Many As One Million Armed New Yorkers Are About To Break The Law - Forbes



> This year April 15 is more than the tax deadline for an estimated one million New York State residents. It’s also the deadline to register “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines. If they don’t, they’ll begin living outside the law. A lot of them have decided to do just that. They’ve decided to practice civil disobedience even though failure to register an “assault weapon” by the deadline is punishable as a “class A misdemeanor,” which means a maximum sentence of one year in prison.





> I put “assault weapon” and “high-capacity” in quotes because their definitions vary by state—they’re political terms. In New York State, the SAFE Act passed by the legislature and signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo in January 2013, uses an expansive and elaborate definition of “assault weapon” that includes a lot more than AR-15s.* Now even a semiautomatic Remington Model 1100 shotgun—a popular shotgun first made in 1963 that is used by millions of hunters and skeet shooters—is an “assault weapon” in New York State if the shotgun has a pistol grip. *Many other commonly owned pistols, shotguns and rifles are also now labeled “assault weapons” in New York State.





> When I asked the New York State Police how many New York gun owners had registered the guns they own that now fit somewhere into the state’s expansive “assault weapons” category the state responded: “New York State Police cannot release information related to the registration of assault weapons including the number of assault weapons registered. Those records you seek are derived from information collected for the State Police database and are, therefore, exempt from disclosure.”





> This is the same dilemma Connecticut gun owners found themselves in at the end of 2013. As of December 31, 2013, according to Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police (CSP CSPI -0.77%), the state had received 41,347 applications to register “assault weapons” and 36,932 applications to register “high-capacity” magazines. *That means that more than 300,000 Connecticut residents decided not to register their “assault weapons,” moved them out of state, or sold them*.



300,000 new Connecticut criminals.......

There is a history to these things....of course...liberals believe history starts when they wake up in the morning.....


----------



## Little-Acorn

Wry Catcher said:


> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk


Very good.

And your point is....??


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Current gun laws are enforced. What evidence do you have that they are not?
> 
> Why does any citizen need a large capacity magazine and speed loader?
> 
> Why does any citizen need an assault weapon (that is a weapon designed to kill many humans as rapidly as possible?
> 
> Not all felons are violent, some crimes of violence are misdemeanors (assault, battery, domestic violence, even ADW is a wobbler).
> 
> Background checks aren't extensive, if a license is required, I would have the offender printed and the prints be placed separately from criminal records, and recorded solely to notify the licensing agency if and when the licensee come to the attention of law enforcement. At that time the license could be suspended pending further information. If the information reveals the offender committed a serious violent felony, and act of domestic violence, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws....in Chicago....they don't prosecute gun crimes.....the guys who shot up a park last year had gun crimes in their backgrounds but were given boot camps instead of long prison sentences due to weapons charges....
> 
> Magazines, speed loaders and assault weapons....first, they haven't broken the law, 2nd, the citizens need to have access to the basic weapon of the U.S. infantry....to keep the government from turning on the people...
> 
> Now this is funny ^^^.  You really don't think through anything, do you?
> 
> The background check for the Santa Barbara killer....he had one done for each of the 3 weapons he bought.....the 8-9,000 gun murders a year.....current background checks didn't stop them....and stolen guns or guns bought for gang members by girlfriends and family members  won't be stopped by background checks either....
> 
> You see the world as black and white, thus you cannot understand that background checks do not equate to a vetting such as done with police candidates.  That thefts could be reduced if the gun owner did not safely store his or her guns, making the gun owner culpable both civilly and criminally for harm done with a weapon poorly stored and easily stolen might be effective.
> 
> Criminals do not get permits, licenses....only law abiding citizens do.....again.....how does that stop any crime.....
> 
> A criminal would be someone who didn't get a license, or one previously convicted of certain crimes.  Any person who provided a gun to an unlicensed individual in any manner would lose their license and suffer criminal penalties as well as be civilly liable for any harm done to any person or their property.
> 
> We don't live in a movie where we can predict what each person will do before they do it.
> 
> When someone breaks the law with a gun...arrest them and prosecute them for the gun crime...put them away for a long, long time......that is effective gun control.....
> 
> "Use a gun, go to prison", and use of a gun enhancements are in effect in CA. and have been for years.
> 
> And more on Magazine limits.....the killer at Santa Barbara....used legally mandated 10 round magazines...the limits didn't stop him....
> 
> So, other killers/mass murderers have used larger capacity mags and speed loaders to do their thing.  Why does an average citizen need to rapidly fire a dozen or more rounds?
> 
> The Sandy Hook shooter...changed magazines frequently, using combat reloading techniques so magazine limits wouldn't have mattered or stopped him.....
> 
> Once situation proves nothing, a shooter will need to pause, maybe take his eyes off of the targets and thus give some people a chance to run away or time to charge the Sob
> 
> Also...he had pistols with him....so taking away an the AR-15 wouldn't have saved any lives.....
> 
> You don't know that
> 
> magazine limits, gun bans....pointless and only punish the very people who don't abuse them....
Click to expand...


*Punished, lol, that amounts to a spanking - what greater punishment is there than to take your 6 yo to school and have him or her slaughtered.*


----------



## 2aguy

> The background check for the Santa Barbara killer....he had one done for each of the 3 weapons he bought.....the 8-9,000 gun murders a year.....current background checks didn't stop them....and stolen guns or guns bought for gang members by girlfriends and family members won't be stopped by background checks either....
> 
> You see the world as black and white, thus you cannot understand that background checks do not equate to a vetting such as done with police candidates. That thefts could be reduced if the gun owner did not safely store his or her guns, making the gun owner culpable both civilly and criminally for harm done with a weapon poorly stored and easily stolen might be effective.



Then what are they for...?  They are pointless....they don't stop criminals from getting guns, they don't stop mass shooters from getting guns....they are an added step....for the sake of adding a step....to law abiding people getting guns.....no other reason.

If someone has a house or apartment and keeps their gun in their home....it is safely stored......if he leaves it lying around on his front lawn locked and loaded....you might have a case....otherwise...they are the victim of a crime, not a perpetrator....why would you punish them if their property is stolen....that makes no sense.....


----------



## 2aguy

> When someone breaks the law with a gun...arrest them and prosecute them for the gun crime...put them away for a long, long time......that is effective gun control.....
> 
> "Use a gun, go to prison", and use of a gun enhancements are in effect in CA. and have been for years.



And you show how effective these laws are...the Santa barbara killer didn't seem deterred....but locking up violaters is the only sane way to enact "gun control" anything else, background checks, registration, and licensing...do absolutely nothing for what you claim you want to achieve....yet you still want to do them...that is crazy....


----------



## 2aguy

> And more on Magazine limits.....the killer at Santa Barbara....used legally mandated 10 round magazines...the limits didn't stop him....
> 
> So, other killers/mass murderers have used larger capacity mags and speed loaders to do their thing. Why does an average citizen need to rapidly fire a dozen or more rounds?



they are not larger capacity magazines....a 100 round drum is a large capacity device, but a 30 round magazine is a standard magazine.....do you even know what a speed loader is....you claim to be a police officer right?   

If the bad guys have access to standard magazines, and the cops have a standard magazine...then the people who pay the police, and who have to defend themselves against the criminals need those magazines as well....I don't know why you think you are able to predict exactly what people will need to defend themselves.....considering the violent criminals who have soaked up 14 rounds and kept fighting....


----------



## boilermaker55

What is obvious is the right winger and tea party crowd want it to be  status quo. 
Posing this question shows you have no answer to the problem.
First, an intelligent thought would be recognizing there is a problem.


----------



## 2aguy

> The Sandy Hook shooter...changed magazines frequently, using combat reloading techniques so magazine limits wouldn't have mattered or stopped him.....
> 
> Once situation proves nothing, a shooter will need to pause, maybe take his eyes off of the targets and thus give some people a chance to run away or time to charge the Sob



This has been addressed a number of times....because these killers target gun free zones, they are never under time pressure....at Sandy Hook he took his time, changed magazines numerous times and killed himself before the police arrived...he killed 4 adults and 22 children.....there was no pause for him to get charged, and some claim one or two people escaped due to a magazine change....but he still killed 26 others......the whole magazine change thing is stupid....

You would have to understand what a pause meant, decide to charge and then move from cover to make the charge....and by then he has already reloaded....remember, the principal charged him....and was killed

What if the guy is smart....what if he uses a shotgun.....no magazine...and he can load it without lowering the weapon...my relative who is a cop went to a cop survival class and they showed him how to reload without lowering the weapon....now there is no 1 second magazine change....

The only thing you would do is keep law abiding citizens...the very people not using guns to kill people, from having standard size magazines......and considering how rare school shootings are....another pointless, meaningless, nonsense gesture that just sounds good when you hear it in your head....


----------



## 2aguy

and again....killer goes on to youtube....watches this video....doesn't need an AR-15...buys a couple of glocks, gets background checks, gets them registered, gets  license.......goes to a school and kills a bunch of kids....because it is a gun free zone and the police are about 10 minutes out....if not longer.....


----------



## 2aguy

boilermaker55 said:


> What is obvious is the right winger and tea party crowd want it to be  status quo.
> Posing this question shows you have no answer to the problem.
> First, an intelligent thought would be recognizing there is a problem.




Yeah, there is a problem....with criminals....arrest them and keep them locked up.....that is one thing the Japanese do to lower their gun violence......in conjunction with being a police state....they lock up gun offenders....for so long that organized criminals won't carry guns.....the chance of a long sentence is too much....because in Japan, they will be convicted...unlike here....


----------



## 2aguy

> Also...he had pistols with him....so taking away an the AR-15 wouldn't have saved any lives.....
> 
> You don't know that



So....if the AR-15 had malfunctioned, he would have just gone home........?   right?  A couple of pistols would have killed just as many kids and adults....and would have been easier to conceal.......


----------



## 2aguy

Okay gun grabbers......who besides the Flash, could rush this guy between magazine changes...


Well...Superman...he is almost as fast running as the Flash, but he could just burn a hole through his chest with his vision, as he allowed any bullets to bounce off him....

Now that discourse is just as reality based as you gun grabbers are when you talk about rushing a gun man....

And gabby giffords was once out of more times that it doesn't happen....like at sandy hook....


----------



## 2aguy

> And more on Magazine limits.....the killer at Santa Barbara....used legally mandated 10 round magazines...the limits didn't stop him....
> 
> So, other killers/mass murderers have used larger capacity mags and speed loaders to do their thing. Why does an average citizen need to rapidly fire a dozen or more rounds?



And another thing....did you see the video from Mumbai, or Kenya........where the terrorists calmly walked around the mall executing innocent people...who were disarmed.......it can happen here....it may very well happen here....and you don't want anyone to be able to resist until the police arrive minutes later......


----------



## 2aguy

Well, finally, the movie Terror in the Mall, the documentary on the attack at the mall in Kenya is on Youtube....I suggest that you anti gunners watch it....had these people had guns, the 4 gunmen would have had a problem killing innocent people....not for the squeamish....it shows the deaths of unarmed people....you should watch the whole movie....and then watch Terror in Mumbai....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Little-Acorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
Click to expand...


My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."


----------



## 2aguy

Notice...the killers are not rushed, they are not in a hurry....no one can shoot back....they have plenty of time to change magazines...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."
Click to expand...



The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....

Problem solved....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
Click to expand...


Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.  

In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.


----------



## 2aguy

> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.



I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....

What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......


----------



## 2aguy

The NRA supported mental health additions to the NICS which they also supported....

NRA Supported Sharing Mental Health Data with NICS Funds Not Appropriated - Breitbart



> In January 2008, George W. Bush signed an NRA-supported bill into law to improve and increase incentives for states to share mental health data with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The money for the improvements was spread out over five years, and only a fraction of it has been appropriated.





> The NICS Improvement Act authorized approximately “$200 million a year for five years to improve the submission of mental health records to the NICS.” But according to aHighland Strategies’ funding report card through 2013, only a fraction of the money was appropriated.
> 
> Two such examples are found in 2009 and 2012. First, of the $187,500,000 authorized for 2009, Highland Strategies found only $10 million was appropriated. Second, of the $187,500,000 authorized for 2012, only $5 million was appropriated.





> *Breitbart News spoke with the NRA’s Andrew Arulanandam about this. He said, “Historically, the gun control lobby was against NICS because they were for wait periods–the longer, the better. Ironically, they now claim credit for NICS. Yet they do nothing to lobby for NICS’ maintenance and improvements.*”



So again.....what is your beef with the NRA.....?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Billc said:


> The NRA supported mental health additions to the NICS which they also supported....
> 
> NRA Supported Sharing Mental Health Data with NICS Funds Not Appropriated - Breitbart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In January 2008, George W. Bush signed an NRA-supported bill into law to improve and increase incentives for states to share mental health data with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The money for the improvements was spread out over five years, and only a fraction of it has been appropriated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NICS Improvement Act authorized approximately “$200 million a year for five years to improve the submission of mental health records to the NICS.” But according to aHighland Strategies’ funding report card through 2013, only a fraction of the money was appropriated.
> 
> Two such examples are found in 2009 and 2012. First, of the $187,500,000 authorized for 2009, Highland Strategies found only $10 million was appropriated. Second, of the $187,500,000 authorized for 2012, only $5 million was appropriated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breitbart News spoke with the NRA’s Andrew Arulanandam about this. He said, “Historically, the gun control lobby was against NICS because they were for wait periods–the longer, the better. Ironically, they now claim credit for NICS. Yet they do nothing to lobby for NICS’ maintenance and improvements.*”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again.....what is your beef with the NRA.....?
Click to expand...


I couldn't help but noticing...

Doesn't that put a hole in your "gun nutter" narrative? What about the whole "unrestricted gun ownership" thing? From what I see, that's a conservative and a gun rights group doing what needs to be done to ensure crazed maniacs don't get their hands on guns.

As for your hypocrisy, words fail me at the moment....


----------



## 2aguy

Not sure what you mean....I am pointing out that Wry Catcher seems to be wrong about the NRA, I know most anti gunners are....they have no real idea what the NRA does, they simply react to anti gun groups spouting nonsense....I don't think background checks do anything....they just add a step for law abiding citizens since if a felon is caught with a gun they have committed another felony....to show I am willing to give a little, I will go along with background checks that don't keep a permanent record, and are instantaneous......they do nothing to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders a year and nothing to stop mass shooters....but they seem to make anti gunners happy....or as happy as they ever get....


----------



## ShootSpeeders

We need to expand the list of prohibited persons to include drunk drivers. 20 years ago the feds said anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse loses their right to have guns and in most states DUI is a misdemeanor too.

Drunk drivers are obviously violent drug criminals and  psychopaths with no concern for the lives of others and should not be allowed guns, or cars either for that matter.


----------



## Contumacious

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.  .





Yes, indeed we do.


I propose a gun law which bans all GUN FREE ZONES.


.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
Click to expand...


Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.  

See and read between the lines this link:

Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries 

 and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.
> 
> See and read between the lines this link:
> 
> Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries
> 
> and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
Click to expand...


You know....I thought you might be a rational person....this last post shows otherwise....


----------



## 2aguy

Hmmm...exactly how is the NRA different from any other civil rights organization....?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.
> 
> See and read between the lines this link:
> 
> Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries
> 
> and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
Click to expand...



gun ownership.....like the guns that save lives 1.6 million times a year...?


----------



## The Rabbi

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.
> 
> See and read between the lines this link:
> 
> Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries
> 
> and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know....I thought you might be a rational person....this last post shows otherwise....
Click to expand...

Why would you think that?  Have you not seen his posts? He starts off stating a relatively coherent point.  But when called on it he simply calls you names and declares that Republicans are idiots.  Theres no arguing with a galoot like that.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.
> 
> See and read between the lines this link:
> 
> Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries
> 
> and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know....I thought you might be a rational person....this last post shows otherwise....
Click to expand...


It does, how?


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.
> 
> See and read between the lines this link:
> 
> Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries
> 
> and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know....I thought you might be a rational person....this last post shows otherwise....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think that?  Have you not seen his posts? He starts off stating a relatively coherent point.  But when called on it he simply calls you names and declares that Republicans are idiots.  Theres no arguing with a galoot like that.
Click to expand...


Rabbit, I only call a few of the people on the right, usually on the far far right, names.  People like you, assholes who post idiot-grams, personal attacks and never seem capable of honesty.  And do take it personally, you're a class A jerk.

Now, tell me, who is punished more, a person required to obtain a license to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, or a parent who sends his 6 yo to school where the child is slaughtered by gunfire?


----------



## 2aguy

Who is responsible for the death of the child you twit....the person who owns a gun...and never uses it to kill or break the law, or the person who murders his mother, steals a gun and kills the child.....

You want to license someone who didn't do anything wrong.....what sort of dumb ass reasoning is that...you twit....


----------



## 2aguy

you are obviously unable to understand that making people who don't break the law get a license to own a weapon they won't abuse will do nothing to stop someone who will break all the rules of civilized behavior And murder children.....

You are clueless...and the people you solid vote for need to be kept out of power.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Who is responsible for the death of the child you twit....the person who owns a gun...and never uses it to kill or break the law, or the person who murders his mother, steals a gun and kills the child.....
> 
> You want to license someone who didn't do anything wrong.....what sort of dumb ass reasoning is that...you twit....



That wasn't the question, your inability to comprehend the written word is sad.  Too often you distort the words of others to support your agenda, you're either disabled or dishonest - I suspect both. 

_*Now, tell me, who is punished more, a person required to obtain a license to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, or a parent who sends his 6 yo to school where the child is slaughtered by gunfire?*_


----------



## 2aguy

they have no bearing on each other....you moron.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> they have no bearing on each other....you moron.



Oh they do, they absolutely do.  But thank you for the evidence, you are both dishonest and dumb.  How very sad to be you.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they should be forced to, but they should do so out of a desire to keep it from happening again...and if they don't....it is a first amendment protection....
> 
> What is it with you and the NRA...they helped get the background checks we have now and are in favor of mental health additions.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, the NRA is a terrorist organization; they promote gun ownership and collude with gun manufacturers and makers of gun accouterments.  They spread fear among the biddable, like you, to join and pay dues and to donate to the NRA whenever a gun or ammo is purchased.
> 
> See and read between the lines this link:
> 
> Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries
> 
> and the links to The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know....I thought you might be a rational person....this last post shows otherwise....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think that?  Have you not seen his posts? He starts off stating a relatively coherent point.  But when called on it he simply calls you names and declares that Republicans are idiots.  Theres no arguing with a galoot like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rabbit, I only call a few of the people on the right, usually on the far far right, names.  People like you, assholes who post idiot-grams, personal attacks and never seem capable of honesty.  And do take it personally, you're a class A jerk.
> 
> Now, tell me, who is punished more, a person required to obtain a license to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, or a parent who sends his 6 yo to school where the child is slaughtered by gunfire?
Click to expand...

The answer is obvious.  The person needing a permit.  He is punished because he legitimately desires to exercise a right but has to jump through meaningless hoops.
The parent is not punished.  The parent is merely a victim.
Now, again, what forms of gun control would prevent school shootings and the like?  You dodge this question because you have no answer.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have no bearing on each other....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they do, they absolutely do.  But thank you for the evidence, you are both dishonest and dumb.  How very sad to be you.
Click to expand...

Damn, did I just prove my point about you or what?


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have no bearing on each other....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they do, they absolutely do.  But thank you for the evidence, you are both dishonest and dumb.  How very sad to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, did I just prove my point about you or what?
Click to expand...


I guess since you are a callous conservative asshole, losing a child to an ideology is fine, as long as it doesn't impact you.  Really now, calling you an asshole and a callous conservative is necessary but not really sufficient, you're evil, hateful and lack humanity; your are a disgusting.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Asking the same question over and over can be a logical fallacy, something the right wing seems particularly adept at - maybe the only thing.  For those who need some explanation why this particular form or rhetoric is used by Rabbi and others members of the Crazy Right Wing, look up "Complex Question" or "Loaded Question".  In addition to being annoying, asking the same thing over and over is quite childish.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have no bearing on each other....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they do, they absolutely do.  But thank you for the evidence, you are both dishonest and dumb.  How very sad to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, did I just prove my point about you or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess since you are a callous conservative asshole, losing a child to an ideology is fine, as long as it doesn't impact you.  Really now, calling you an asshole and a callous conservative is necessary but not really sufficient, you're evil, hateful and lack humanity; your are a disgusting.
Click to expand...

Wow, are you acting to type or what?  I predicted these would be your posts: deflective, insulting, content free.  And you are proving me right every time.
You are a clueless moron.  No wonder you live in SF.  Your posts are absurd.  The kind of thing 14 years old giggle over.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> Asking the same question over and over can be a logical fallacy, something the right wing seems particularly adept at - maybe the only thing.  For those who need some explanation why this particular form or rhetoric is used by Rabbi and others members of the Crazy Right Wing, look up "Complex Question" or "Loaded Question".  In addition to being annoying, asking the same thing over and over is quite childish.


We ask the same question because you refuse to answer it.
What "common sense" gun control laws do you think would eliminate or cut down on gun related crime?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Thanks for sharing Rabbit, now look up the form of questions I posted for evidence you are what you accuse me of being; then read all of my responses.  IM(not so)HO your lack of substance and inability to defend your ideology (Crazy Right Winger) has many explanations, not the least of which is you're poorly educated and have a callous disregard for anyone and any idea which threatens your ego.  You may not be dull normal, but there is no evidence to suggest that is not true.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> Thanks for sharing Rabbit, now look up the form of questions I posted for evidence you are what you accuse me of being; then read all of my responses.  IM(not so)HO your lack of substance and inability to defend your ideology (Crazy Right Winger) has many explanations, not the least of which is you're poorly educated and have a callous disregard for anyone and any idea which threatens your ego.  You may not be dull normal, but there is no evidence to suggest that is not true.


That still doesnt answer the question of what gun laws do you support that will reduce or eliminate gun violence.


----------



## boilermaker55

It should strike everyone that follows the argumentative style of the right wingers. When the politics or legal system from another country fits so conveniently into their argument they use it. However, if it doesn't their quick and only response is to those that have another point of view........."move if you don't like it here."
Funny. 




Billc said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is obvious is the right winger and tea party crowd want it to be  status quo.
> Posing this question shows you have no answer to the problem.
> First, an intelligent thought would be recognizing there is a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a problem....with criminals....arrest them and keep them locked up.....that is one thing the Japanese do to lower their gun violence......in conjunction with being a police state....they lock up gun offenders....for so long that organized criminals won't carry guns.....the chance of a long sentence is too much....because in Japan, they will be convicted...unlike here....
Click to expand...




Billc said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is obvious is the right winger and tea party crowd want it to be  status quo.
> Posing this question shows you have no answer to the problem.
> First, an intelligent thought would be recognizing there is a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a problem....with criminals....arrest them and keep them locked up.....that is one thing the Japanese do to lower their gun violence......in conjunction with being a police state....they lock up gun offenders....for so long that organized criminals won't carry guns.....the chance of a long sentence is too much....because in Japan, they will be convicted...unlike here....
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

What do you propose?
More prisons?










The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing Rabbit, now look up the form of questions I posted for evidence you are what you accuse me of being; then read all of my responses.  IM(not so)HO your lack of substance and inability to defend your ideology (Crazy Right Winger) has many explanations, not the least of which is you're poorly educated and have a callous disregard for anyone and any idea which threatens your ego.  You may not be dull normal, but there is no evidence to suggest that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> That still doesnt answer the question of what gun laws do you support that will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.


hmm. lemme check.
Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
Click to expand...


The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment. 

That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.

The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.


----------



## Avatar4321

The best way for progressives to keep guns out of the hands of criminals would be to not buy them. Just saying


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Avatar4321 said:


> The best way for progressives to keep guns out of the hands of criminals would be to not buy them. Just saying


Just saying?  Just don't bother, that's what it's worth.


----------



## boilermaker55

Sure, that is all they do. They want the laws as status quo, yet they seem to not like the violence in America. However, the have no ideas to change the path at all.





Wry Catcher said:


> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment.
> 
> That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.
> 
> The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.
Click to expand...

OK, so you agree there is no practical law or policy that will reduce or eliminate gun violence.  At least we agree on that, although it was like pulling teeth.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment.
> 
> That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.
> 
> The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so you agree there is no practical law or policy that will reduce or eliminate gun violence.  At least we agree on that, although it was like pulling teeth.
Click to expand...


You're dishonest, and maybe the most dishonest jerk who posts on this message board.  Or, maybe you're just stupid.  I haven't ruled that out.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment.
> 
> That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.
> 
> The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.
Click to expand...


How well did gun prohibition work against the IRA?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.



Ignoring that your statement they support "gun control" is 50K foot hand waving, what conclusion do we draw from that?  Cops do not have the same interest as citizens.  Cops are interested in defending the cops.  That citizens should not be able to defend themselves because government employees support gun control is a ridiculous argument.


----------



## kaz

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment.
> 
> That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.
> 
> The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How well did gun prohibition work against the IRA?
Click to expand...


Yes, great point


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment.
> 
> That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.
> 
> The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.
Click to expand...



Like they did in France, Canada, Australia, Britain and Belgium.....the places of the most recent muslim terrorist attacks......?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> hmm. lemme check.
> Nope, still not answering hte question as to which gun laws do you think will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only law which will eliminate gun violence, you jerk, is to eliminate guns from the environment.
> 
> That is exactly what you wanted read, and thus you will claim victory and will take this quote out of context to prove one thing only, you're a liar.  Your agenda is obvious, only fools - like you - believes you're being slick; sadly you're not the only fool to play this childish game.
> 
> The elimination of guns from our environment isn't practical or desirable; men and women have a need for guns to protect themselves in their home or business and to enjoy in shooting sports; the gun culture, however, is dominated by fools, cowards and liars who who preach hate and fear and business interests like the NRA, gun makers and those who make accouterments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like they did in France, Canada, Australia, Britain and Belgium.....the places of the most recent muslim terrorist attacks......?
Click to expand...

It's like communism to them. No matter how many times it fails, they still insist gun control works if only......


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?
> 
> So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime.  Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "criminals".  If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work.  But is it rational or doable?  And, in fact it might not go far enough.  Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).
> 
> For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion.  Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this:  _Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo:   "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"
> _
> Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.
> 
> Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center
> 
> I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.
> 
> BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you need to make a rational argument.  I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.
> 
> Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.
> 
> Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).
> 
> But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.
> 
> I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?
> 
> Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!
> 
> BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
> I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
> I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_
Click to expand...


Kind of like voter ID?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either.  I don't know.  I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner.  You fit that mold.  Some are true, most are not.  And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this.  They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all have different life experiences, mine maybe unique.  But most Chief's of Police support gun control - at least those who are employed in the civilized parts of our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who believes what isn't an argument.  Look dude, my OP question is very clear.  What about actually answering it instead of telling us you have guns and who thinks what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All threads evolve, that said and I've said there is no panacea in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> But let's try this analogy:
> 
> MADD (Mother's against Drunk Drivers) have had a major impact on drunk driving in America.  Not every person cited and convicted of DUI is an alcoholic or a drug addict, and yet these usually sober persons killed and injured innocent people way too often.  MADD has helped to educate the legislatures all around the country as to the health dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.
> 
> The same is true with those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, the vast majority are not criminals until they misuse their gun.  Hiding behind the Second Amendment you and others claim nothing can be done until someone is killed or maimed - I find that to be insane, selfish and callous.
> 
> Since legislators are best convinced by arguments framed in campaign donations, _*I have decided the NRA is a terrorist organization, simply because they dominate the debate in Congress and in State Houses around the nation to put forth their agenda   Guns good, gun control bad* and if you disagree we will support your opponent._
Click to expand...

So you freely admit that you view your intellectual adversaries as terrorists? Why? Can't you defend yourself from them?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, let's do that.  Any person over the age of 12 who commits any felony, misdemeanor or has been civilly committed to a mental hospital as a danger to themselves or others shall have both of their hands removed.
> 
> Any more stupid questions Rabbit?  How about we excuse those who violate the law of gravity, we don't want to be too harsh.
Click to expand...

How about we deny those same people the right to vote?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
Click to expand...

How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is responsible for the death of the child you twit....the person who owns a gun...and never uses it to kill or break the law, or the person who murders his mother, steals a gun and kills the child.....
> 
> You want to license someone who didn't do anything wrong.....what sort of dumb ass reasoning is that...you twit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't the question, your inability to comprehend the written word is sad.  Too often you distort the words of others to support your agenda, you're either disabled or dishonest - I suspect both.
> 
> _*Now, tell me, who is punished more, a person required to obtain a license to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, or a parent who sends his 6 yo to school where the child is slaughtered by gunfire?*_
Click to expand...

The answer is obvious, but you would seek to punish, in advance, 300,000,000 potential legal gun owners that have done nothing other than desire to exercise a right expressly guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Would you be OK with a literacy/civics test to qualify for the right to vote?


----------



## Lakhota

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
Click to expand...


That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.


----------



## Ernie S.

Avatar4321 said:


> The best way for progressives to keep guns out of the hands of criminals would be to not buy them. Just saying


Best post of the whole thread!


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
Click to expand...

I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.

More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point, best expressed by Renan:  "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength."  and, "Our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
Click to expand...


We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
Click to expand...

We have the fullest jails in the world because we have 12% of our population committing half of the crimes.
Do you propose we ship that 12% to, say, Kenya, or do you think we should punish them for the crimes they commit? Maybe we should just let them go because they tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?

Some direct answers would be appreciated, but are unexpected.


----------



## Ernie S.

By the way. Is your screen name a joke? Is it akin to me calling myself Fat man?


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> 
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world because we have 12% of our population committing half of the crimes.
> Do you propose we ship that 12% to, say, Kenya, or do you think we should punish them for the crimes they commit? Maybe we should just let them go because they tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
> 
> Some direct answers would be appreciated, but are unexpected.
Click to expand...


So they are full because a minority of the population is committing crimes?  I would think we should look at why that is rather than shipping them off.  I don't really think it is a race issue.  You like paying for lots of jails?


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world because we have 12% of our population committing half of the crimes.
> Do you propose we ship that 12% to, say, Kenya, or do you think we should punish them for the crimes they commit? Maybe we should just let them go because they tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
> 
> Some direct answers would be appreciated, but are unexpected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they are full because a minority of the population is committing crimes?  I would think we should look at why that is rather than shipping them off.  I don't really think it is a race issue.  You like paying for lots of jails?
Click to expand...

It's a cultural issue. That culture is rampant among that minority. Fix that culture. I can't but people respected within that culture can. Instead, we have Sharpton and Jackson and obama blaming abhorrent behavior on the white man.

No! Of course I don't like paying a lot for jails, BUT, I don't want criminals sleeping on my sofa either. Where would you put them if not in jails?

Edited to add: I see you are incapable of answering direct questions. I'm not shocked.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world because we have 12% of our population committing half of the crimes.
> Do you propose we ship that 12% to, say, Kenya, or do you think we should punish them for the crimes they commit? Maybe we should just let them go because they tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
> 
> Some direct answers would be appreciated, but are unexpected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they are full because a minority of the population is committing crimes?  I would think we should look at why that is rather than shipping them off.  I don't really think it is a race issue.  You like paying for lots of jails?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a cultural issue. That culture is rampant among that minority. Fix that culture. I can't but people respected within that culture can. Instead, we have Sharpton and Jackson and obama blaming abhorrent behavior on the white man.
> 
> No! Of course I don't like paying a lot for jails, BUT, I don't want criminals sleeping on my sofa either. Where would you put them if not in jails?
Click to expand...


Well you have to jail them of course.  But we might start looking at the cause of the problems and putting an end to it at some point.  I agree Sharpton and Jackson aren't doing anyone any favors.  If we are the greatest country in the world then there is no reason why we should have the fullest jails in the world.  If throwing people in jail fixed the problem we'd have the lowest crime rates in the world.


----------



## Ernie S.

We let them out.

We know the cause of the problem, namely children born and raised in single parent families where they are not taught a strong work ethic and don't value conformance to society's laws or obtaining a good education. I'm at a loss to explain how to teach citizenship to people who insist I'm a racist based on my stating facts that embarrass them.
From what I see is the only way we can teach children to be responsible adults is by example. A second generation welfare mother with children by 3 or 4 baby-daddies is hardly the example these kids need.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> We let them out.
> 
> We know the cause of the problem, namely children born and raised in single parent families where they are not taught a strong work ethic and don't value conformance to society's laws or obtaining a good education. I'm at a loss to explain how to teach citizenship to people who insist I'm a racist based on my stating facts that embarrass them.
> From what I see is the only way we can teach children to be responsible adults is by example. A second generation welfare mother with children by 3 or 4 baby-daddies is hardly the example these kids need.



Well I can't really disagree with that.  I think some of the answers are in public education.  But this is getting far off topic I think.


----------



## Ernie S.

Hmm We are coming to some commonality and you say we're going off topic.

Isn't some common ground what this discussion needs? Or are you so dead set against 2nd Amentment rights that the idea of rational discussion with the opposition infuriates you.

Gotta go stop by the bar. BBL.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Hmm We are coming to some commonality and you say we're going off topic.
> 
> Isn't some common ground what this discussion needs? Or are you so dead set against 2nd Amentment rights that the idea of rational discussion with the opposition infuriates you.
> 
> Gotta go stop by the bar. BBL.



I've not suggested doing anything with the 2nd amendment.  My issue is with the idea that more guns equals less crime.  I don't think more guns are the answer, but that doesn't mean I want to disarm anyone other than criminals.  I think if more guns did equal less crime we'd have the lowest crime rates as we clearly have the most guns.  I think if I owned a bar as you do I'd probably carry too.  But that doesn't mean it's a great idea for most people.  Clearly it was a bad idea for the woman who was shot dead by her 2 year old for example.  But it was a good idea for the guy who shot dead the guy who beheaded that woman.  So I think it is dangerous to act like everyone should be carrying a gun.  For most people they will never need one and may just be endangering themselves or others by carrying.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_



What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Since legislators are best convinced by arguments framed in campaign donations, _*I have decided the NRA is a terrorist organization, simply because they dominate the debate in Congress and in State Houses around the nation to put forth their agenda   Guns good, gun control bad* and if you disagree we will support your opponent._



And left wing advocacy groups don't do that.  Seriously, you believe that.


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?
Click to expand...



Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....


----------



## kaz

Billc said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
Click to expand...


Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> 
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world because we have 12% of our population committing half of the crimes.
> Do you propose we ship that 12% to, say, Kenya, or do you think we should punish them for the crimes they commit? Maybe we should just let them go because they tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
> 
> Some direct answers would be appreciated, but are unexpected.
Click to expand...


We have more incarcerated than another Western Nation.  Institutional racism has more than a little impact on our jail/prison population.

I've posted my opinion on ways and means of doing things differently, but too many pols are demagogues and too many Ernies S's believe in doing the same thing for another generation is the smart course of action.

So if Ernie S wants a direct answer it is this.  Stop dong what we've been doing and begin to explore new and better ways to reduce poverty, level the playing field and reward good behavior.  Don't expect a dog kicked to ever be socialized.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
Click to expand...


Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
Click to expand...


So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution...stop the media from glorifying mass shooters...don't reveal their names or their photos....anyone who commits a gun crime ....a long prison sentence.....
> 
> Problem solved....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
Click to expand...


They don't have as many black people.

Just saying.


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, now you are willing to silence the Free Press but not to give an inch on gun control.
> 
> In fact I agree with you, in the sense that the press should self censor, and the NRA and its followers should do so too.  I hope this is not to abstract for you.
> 
> 
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many gun laws do we need? How many more will it take before you realize that criminals don't obey laws, no matter how many there are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
Click to expand...


It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?

So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
Click to expand...


And who is fair to compare to?


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why we should abolish speed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
Click to expand...


There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?
Click to expand...


Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?

And just who do you want to compare us to?


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we should abolish all gun laws. My point is that we have thousands that are insufficiently enforced.
> 
> More and newly worded laws will be just as ineffective to stop gun violence. Putting violent felons in prison for keeps WOULD have an effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is fair to compare to?
Click to expand...


The United States.  Nobody else has our problems.  That we would have less crime if we didn't have black people and millions of illegal immigrants is a simple fact, incontrovertable.  It's an "inconvenient truth".  Both are our fault. We had slavery, we refused to protect our borders because we wanted cheap labor.  And now when you look at our prisons, you can't ignore the fact that hispanics and blacks are committing the majority of violent crimes, and it isn't "racist" to make note of that.


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the fullest jails in the world.  Seems like other countries must be doing something better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is fair to compare to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States.  Nobody else has our problems.  That we would have less crime if we didn't have black people and millions of illegal immigrants is a simple fact, incontrovertable.  It's an "inconvenient truth".  Both are our fault. We had slavery, we refused to protect our borders because we wanted cheap labor.  And now when you look at our prisons, you can't ignore the fact that hispanics and blacks are committing the majority of violent crimes, and it isn't "racist" to make note of that.
Click to expand...


I see so nobody.  Because nobody else has immigrants and only we had slavery.  Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?
> 
> And just who do you want to compare us to?
Click to expand...

You're a rank moron who doesn't know how crime stats are tallied.  I try not to argue with people as stupid as you because it causes me to lose my edge, but there's too many of you and too few of my kind, so here goes.

Not every country applies the law like the United States.  Charging fewer people with homicide doesn't mean that fewer homicides are being committed.  When entire villages are mowed down with AK-47's and nobody is brought to justice because of it, that doesn't mean the country is "low crime", it means that it's a very high crime country nigh to being an anarchy.  Somolia is a good example of this.  

So now when I tell you you can take what you think you know and shove it, you'll know why.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have as many black people.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who is fair to compare to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States.  Nobody else has our problems.  That we would have less crime if we didn't have black people and millions of illegal immigrants is a simple fact, incontrovertable.  It's an "inconvenient truth".  Both are our fault. We had slavery, we refused to protect our borders because we wanted cheap labor.  And now when you look at our prisons, you can't ignore the fact that hispanics and blacks are committing the majority of violent crimes, and it isn't "racist" to make note of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see so nobody.  Because nobody else has immigrants and only we had slavery.  Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.
Click to expand...


Nobody else has hordes of ILLEGAL immigrants, you stupid, dumbass.


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure that is true.  Certainly not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?
> 
> And just who do you want to compare us to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a rank moron who doesn't know how crime stats are tallied.  I try not to argue with people as stupid as you because it causes me to lose my edge, but there's too many of you and too few of my kind, so here goes.
> 
> Not every country applies the law like the United States.  Charging fewer people with homicide doesn't mean that fewer homicides are being committed.  When entire villages are mowed down with AK-47's and nobody is brought to justice because of it, that doesn't mean the country is "low crime", it means that it's a very high crime country nigh to being an anarchy.  Somolia is a good example of this.
> 
> So now when I tell you you can take what you think you know and shove it, you'll know why.
Click to expand...


Sure we are the only country who calculates homicide rates correctly.  Right.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is.  Who are you going to compare us to....Sweden?  Does Sweden share a border with a 3rd world nation and is it invaded by hordes of illegal aliens?  Do they have black people who refuse to rise from the ghetto mentality and commit triple their fair share of crimes?
> 
> So before you start comparing our prisons and crime rate with other nations, you should ask yourself if the comparison is truly fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?
> 
> And just who do you want to compare us to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a rank moron who doesn't know how crime stats are tallied.  I try not to argue with people as stupid as you because it causes me to lose my edge, but there's too many of you and too few of my kind, so here goes.
> 
> Not every country applies the law like the United States.  Charging fewer people with homicide doesn't mean that fewer homicides are being committed.  When entire villages are mowed down with AK-47's and nobody is brought to justice because of it, that doesn't mean the country is "low crime", it means that it's a very high crime country nigh to being an anarchy.  Somolia is a good example of this.
> 
> So now when I tell you you can take what you think you know and shove it, you'll know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we are the only country who calculates homicide rates correctly.  Right.
Click to expand...


Did I say that? Then STFU!


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are countries in Africa with lower homicide and incarceration rates.
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?
> 
> And just who do you want to compare us to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a rank moron who doesn't know how crime stats are tallied.  I try not to argue with people as stupid as you because it causes me to lose my edge, but there's too many of you and too few of my kind, so here goes.
> 
> Not every country applies the law like the United States.  Charging fewer people with homicide doesn't mean that fewer homicides are being committed.  When entire villages are mowed down with AK-47's and nobody is brought to justice because of it, that doesn't mean the country is "low crime", it means that it's a very high crime country nigh to being an anarchy.  Somolia is a good example of this.
> 
> So now when I tell you you can take what you think you know and shove it, you'll know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we are the only country who calculates homicide rates correctly.  Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Then STFU!
Click to expand...


You seem to be yes.  As a percent of population Canada has more immigrants than the US.  As do other countries....


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Brain357 said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand is that having a lower incarceration rate isn't an attribute.  If often means that crimes aren't being punished.  How many countries in Africa have armed militias terrorizing the country side killing people with machetes and raping women and children and you want to praise them because they don't throw these people in prison?  What the hell's the matter with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?
> 
> And just who do you want to compare us to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a rank moron who doesn't know how crime stats are tallied.  I try not to argue with people as stupid as you because it causes me to lose my edge, but there's too many of you and too few of my kind, so here goes.
> 
> Not every country applies the law like the United States.  Charging fewer people with homicide doesn't mean that fewer homicides are being committed.  When entire villages are mowed down with AK-47's and nobody is brought to justice because of it, that doesn't mean the country is "low crime", it means that it's a very high crime country nigh to being an anarchy.  Somolia is a good example of this.
> 
> So now when I tell you you can take what you think you know and shove it, you'll know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we are the only country who calculates homicide rates correctly.  Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be yes.  As a percent of population Canada has more immigrants than the US.  As do other countries....
Click to expand...


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, YOU TRIPLE DUMBFUCK DELIGHT!

I'm through talking to you. Good bye.


----------



## Brain357

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those the same ones with the low homicide rate?
> 
> And just who do you want to compare us to?
> 
> 
> 
> You're a rank moron who doesn't know how crime stats are tallied.  I try not to argue with people as stupid as you because it causes me to lose my edge, but there's too many of you and too few of my kind, so here goes.
> 
> Not every country applies the law like the United States.  Charging fewer people with homicide doesn't mean that fewer homicides are being committed.  When entire villages are mowed down with AK-47's and nobody is brought to justice because of it, that doesn't mean the country is "low crime", it means that it's a very high crime country nigh to being an anarchy.  Somolia is a good example of this.
> 
> So now when I tell you you can take what you think you know and shove it, you'll know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure we are the only country who calculates homicide rates correctly.  Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say that? Then STFU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be yes.  As a percent of population Canada has more immigrants than the US.  As do other countries....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, YOU TRIPLE DUMBFUCK DELIGHT!
> 
> I'm through talking to you. Good bye.
Click to expand...


Adios!


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't want to limit your right,  I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that.  It simply makes sense.  You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right.  A right I don't support taking away, _*but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
Click to expand...


Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.

Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Amen ^^^


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
Click to expand...


Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"

I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
Click to expand...



They won't answer that question....I have put it to them before as well....why let people post on the internet without getting a permit....or requiring them to pay insurance in case they slander someone on the internet....or require them to take mandatory legal classes before they can write books or post on the internet.......


----------



## kaz

Little-Acorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
Click to expand...


He hasn't answer to the question, but the thread is only 114 pages, he's probably still working on the plan.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but these gun nuts right to guns all types of arms shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> There is no way that allowing a State to license anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his custody or control a gun, if we assume the bar for such ownership is established by a vote of the people and such license can be suspended for cause, is a great burden to anyone.
Click to expand...


Yet again a lot of ranting ... and no answer to the question.

You know what I should have asked when I started the thread was how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals when we can't keep pot out of the hands of high schoolers.  Maybe then you would have grasped the question.

Oh...wait...I did do that...


----------



## kaz

Billc said:


> morons like you are just dumb....background checks, gun registration, licensing gun owners...would not have stopped Sandy Hook, you twit.....the mother bought her guns legally....and if your dumb ideas had been law her guns....which were background checked...would have been Universally background checked, they would have been registered, and she would have been licensed..........and then her son would have killed her and taken those guns anyway...



You don't think criminals would follow the law?  Hmm...you could be right...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Current gun laws are enforced.  What evidence do you have that they are not?



Do you know what Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard and Virginia Tech have in common?  No one was shooting back.   The victims followed the law.  The criminals didn't.  That is the point.  What good are your gun laws?  How are you going to get CRIMINALS to follow them while you continue to disarm their victims?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk



And do you know what we have not seen so far in this thread?  A proposal that shows how liberals are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## kaz

Little-Acorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
> 
> 
> It's my Second Amendment Right!
> Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
> Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
> Honest citizens will become criminals;
> Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good.
> 
> And your point is....??
Click to expand...


If he redid that justifying why freedom of speech should not be licensed, he would suddenly get it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
Click to expand...


You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:

Non Sequitur


----------



## Wry Catcher

Kaz, your fascination, obsession or fetish for guns is pathological.  You may not believe this is true, but watching how you shit yourself, and get it all over your hat, is in it self fascinating.  *GUN CONTROL!!!*  Did writing that make shit come out of your ears?  I hope so, maybe then when all the shit is gone, and in that big old void between your ears, you may have room to think.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Click to expand...


Simple, cut of their hands.  
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.

Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.

So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?

Just In Case Fallacy


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
Click to expand...

You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, great point Bill.  Books can be dangerous.  They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government.  We need to license that sort of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
Click to expand...


Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?

And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.

And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.

What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Kaz, your fascination, obsession or fetish for guns is pathological.  You may not believe this is true, but watching how you shit yourself, and get it all over your hat, is in it self fascinating.  *GUN CONTROL!!!*  Did writing that make shit come out of your ears?  I hope so, maybe then when all the shit is gone, and in that big old void between your ears, you may have room to think.


Wry, your fascination, obsession or fetish for abortion is pathological.  You may not believe this is true, but watching how you shit yourself, and get it all over your hat, is in it self fascinating.  *ABORTION!!!*  Did writing that make shit come out of your ears?  I hope so, maybe then when all the shit is gone, and in that big old void between your ears, you may have room to think.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy



LOL, posting the fallacy that you are the only one doing.  And I like this argument from the guy who accused me of thinking I'm being "clever" asking him why restrictions he wants on second amendment rights can't be used on our first amendment rights.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
Click to expand...


The guy who's proposal to keep guns out of the "hands" of criminals is to cut off their hands is accusing someone of being "dishonest?"  That's classic.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
Click to expand...

Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some.  Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result.  Isn't that right, Kaz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
Click to expand...


Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.

All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.

The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?  

Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?

What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
Click to expand...


Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"!  Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> _*And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime*_, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
Click to expand...

And let's make speaking by an unlicensed Liberal a crime. We can then cut out their tongue and cut off their fingers.

Yes there are restrictions on free speech and should be restrictions on how guns are used as well.

Well DAMN! There are, and always have been. Murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. It makes little difference whether you're stabbed with a steak knife or shot, once you're dead. It matters not one iota if you're robbed by a man with a gun or a sword. You've still lost your cash.
The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> _*All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.*_
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
Click to expand...

Do they require a license to speak? No, because "Congress shall make no law ...... abridging the freedom of speech."
Why then do you want laws licensing my right to keep and bear arms when directly below the first Amendment, you find the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know rational if it snuck up behind you and bit you on your rye soaked ass.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> _*And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime*_, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And let's make speaking by an unlicensed Liberal a crime. We can then cut out their tongue and cut off their fingers.
> 
> Yes there are restrictions on free speech and should be restrictions on how guns are used as well.
> 
> Well DAMN! There are, and always have been. Murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. It makes little difference whether you're stabbed with a steak knife or shot, once you're dead. It matters not one iota if you're robbed by a man with a gun or a sword. You've still lost your cash.
> The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.
Click to expand...


But it is abridged, unless I can go down to the local gun shop and order my surface to air missile, my rights are being abridged.  If "Arms' means something more than that available in the late 18th Century, then "Arms" to protect me from a tyrannical government today must included modern weapons of war.

Now I suspect this too will be ignored and in response will be more comments about cutting off hands.  But that's what the Crazy Right Wings does, how many times do they claim Obama believes there are 57 states or make other childish comments when faced with a question which is too difficult for them to answer without exposing their hypocrisy.

18 alerts, none substantive and very few honest.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
Click to expand...

Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
Yes, you do.
You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?


----------



## Ernie S.

"Arms" as defined by SCOTUS is weapons commonly carried by an individual soldier.
As it stands right now, that means any and all rifles and handguns up to and including machine guns made before 1986. Fully automatic weapons made before '86 are in fact legal to own with the appropriate transfer stamp with compliance to state laws. SAMs are not a personal weapon, but you're just grasping here.
I am actually considering the purchase of an M 1919 belt fed light machine gun. It will run me about 3K. Figure another $500 for 30.06 ammo and I can have a blast for about 10 minutes.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade.  What about addressing the question?  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
Click to expand...



Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
> 
> How will it work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright.  Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
> 
> That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action.  Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country.  That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
> 
> Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed.  Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's play.
> What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> _*And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime*_, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And let's make speaking by an unlicensed Liberal a crime. We can then cut out their tongue and cut off their fingers.
> 
> Yes there are restrictions on free speech and should be restrictions on how guns are used as well.
> 
> Well DAMN! There are, and always have been. Murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. It makes little difference whether you're stabbed with a steak knife or shot, once you're dead. It matters not one iota if you're robbed by a man with a gun or a sword. You've still lost your cash.
> The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.
Click to expand...




> The right to keep and bear arms is every bit as sacred as the right to speak freely. It shall not be abridged, period.





In fact the right to keep and bear arms backstops the right to speak freely.......the ones with the guns make the rules for speech..........and in too many countries the ones with the guns don't let people speak freely......the left never gets that.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, cut of their hands.
> And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
> 
> Hey, we can also cure cancer.  Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
> 
> So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
> 
> Just In Case Fallacy
> 
> 
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
> Yes, you do.
> You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
> Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?
Click to expand...


Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack.  Can I be more clear?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling.  On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence.  That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
> 
> Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct.  It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
Click to expand...


Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
> Yes, you do.
> You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
> Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack.  Can I be more clear?
Click to expand...

You are clearly too stupid to debate me.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
> Yes, you do.
> You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
> Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack.  Can I be more clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clearly too stupid to debate me.
Click to expand...


Debate you?  LOL, you've never posted anything but ad hominems and idiot-grams.  Sometimes I wonder if you come on line in a dress and pumps and use the log on name of Stephanie.


----------



## Ernie S.

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
> Yes, you do.
> You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
> Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack.  Can I be more clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clearly too stupid to debate me.
Click to expand...

And too drunk.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
Click to expand...

You do realize, doncha, that if the government ordered the military to bomb its citizens, the first target would be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no answer to the question:  "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
> 
> I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to.  Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
Click to expand...



And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....

The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....

You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but.  Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
> 
> Non Sequitur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
Click to expand...


There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant.  Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second.  Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
> 
> And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward.  Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights?  That's a non-sequitur?  That's just stupid.
> 
> And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not.  If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it.  Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that.  Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested.  Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
> 
> What you want is way beyond that.  For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right.  That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
Click to expand...



And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
Click to expand...


Well I don't think it will hurt to have them.  But I still don't think it will happen at all.  There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't think it will hurt to have them.  But I still don't think it will happen at all.  There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.
Click to expand...



And a lot more without them that aren't........


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't think it will hurt to have them.  But I still don't think it will happen at all.  There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a lot more without them that aren't........
Click to expand...


But I don't think you can name any that have had real voting rights or any kind of stable government.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't think it will hurt to have them.  But I still don't think it will happen at all.  There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a lot more without them that aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't think you can name any that have had real voting rights or any kind of stable government.
Click to expand...



Germany....and the countries Germany conquered and then began transporting it's citizens to the death camps....Belgium, Norway, France, and  the others.......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't think it will hurt to have them.  But I still don't think it will happen at all.  There are a lot of societies without guns that seem to be doing just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And a lot more without them that aren't........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't think you can name any that have had real voting rights or any kind of stable government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Germany....and the countries Germany conquered and then began transporting it's citizens to the death camps....Belgium, Norway, France, and  the others.......
Click to expand...


Sure and they had just been destroyed in WWI, you'd call that a stable government?  And that was way before cable tv, cell phones, the internet...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
Click to expand...


Where did he say that?


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're even dumber than I thought.  I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
> Yes, you do.
> You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
> Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack.  Can I be more clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clearly too stupid to debate me.
Click to expand...


He's too stupid to debate a petunia.


----------



## kaz

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control.  Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun.  You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
> 
> All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate.  Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
> 
> The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
> 
> Let's start with a question:  Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
> 
> What say you Kaz?  Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
Click to expand...


I come from a military family.  On that narrow point,  sure, if the military were united in controlling the people, we'd have no chance, at least in the initial conflict.  But that wouldn't happen, it would have to be a faction in the military.  They would be fighting other military, like my family, as well as the people.  So the people being armed would matter.

Liberals like to boil down the debate to that one narrow thing though which is stupid.  It's like saying the only reason to have a car is to get ice cream.    That is one use of a car, but it's far from an accuate view of why we need cars.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he say that?
Click to expand...

He didn't.  Are you incapable of reading in context?  "Your kind" went over your head?  Sad.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.
> You're a piece of cocksucking shit.  No wonder you live in Cali.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I get my ass kicked by you every time and I'm tired of it.
> Yes, you do.
> You offer no new arguments.  Hell, not even clever ones.
> Yes, lets make shoulder fired missiles available.  You want to cough up the $30k it would cost to buy one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you're stupid, dishonest, a liar and a partisan hack.  Can I be more clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clearly too stupid to debate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's too stupid to debate a petunia.
Click to expand...


A petunia provide an equivalent amount of substance - more if we count substance and scent - than either Kaz or Rabbi.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't.  Are you incapable of reading in context?  "Your kind" went over your head?  Sad.
Click to expand...


Exactly, you engaged in a strawman fallacy.  Do you want me to Google that for you or can you handle it on your own?


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't.  Are you incapable of reading in context?  "Your kind" went over your head?  Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, you engaged in a strawman fallacy.  Do you want me to Google that for you or can you handle it on your own?
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter to him.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come from a military family.  On that narrow point,  sure, if the military were united in controlling the people, we'd have no chance, at least in the initial conflict.  But that wouldn't happen, it would have to be a faction in the military.  They would be fighting other military, like my family, as well as the people.  So the people being armed would matter.
> 
> Liberals like to boil down the debate to that one narrow thing though which is stupid.  It's like saying the only reason to have a car is to get ice cream.    That is one use of a car, but it's far from an accuate view of why we need cars.
Click to expand...


More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.

I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.

All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.

All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.

Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.

All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.

Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't.  Are you incapable of reading in context?  "Your kind" went over your head?  Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, you engaged in a strawman fallacy.  Do you want me to Google that for you or can you handle it on your own?
Click to expand...


Fuck you.  You best read up on logical fallacies, in this ^^^ post you've proved your ignorance.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come from a military family.  On that narrow point,  sure, if the military were united in controlling the people, we'd have no chance, at least in the initial conflict.  But that wouldn't happen, it would have to be a faction in the military.  They would be fighting other military, like my family, as well as the people.  So the people being armed would matter.
> 
> Liberals like to boil down the debate to that one narrow thing though which is stupid.  It's like saying the only reason to have a car is to get ice cream.    That is one use of a car, but it's far from an accuate view of why we need cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
Click to expand...

That sounds like California dreamin.
In practice it will lead to a total ban because it will be ineffective in stopping gun violence.  And just think: invite your nephew on a hunt and give him a 30-30 to try out and suddenly both of you are felons.  Good bye gun rights!
Fortunately the Constitution prohibits such idiocy so we wont see it any time soon.


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shoulder fired missiles are not standard issue for infantry soldiers...that is a good place to start....it isn't even in the same category, so.....I'll let you have shoulder fired anti air craft missiles....just keep your hands off of all rifles, pistols shotguns, the ammunition to feed them and the equipment to use them......hows that for a fair trade......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, you really are dumb.  Your kind says it needs weapons to protect itself from government.  Our government has jet planes, do you intend to defend yourself from the tyranny of our government with the weapons you have available?  If so, calling you dumb is a vast understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did he say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't.  Are you incapable of reading in context?  "Your kind" went over your head?  Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, you engaged in a strawman fallacy.  Do you want me to Google that for you or can you handle it on your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesnt matter to him.
Click to expand...


It cracks me up when he commits a fallacy then links to the definition as if someone else did it.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.



The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?



Wry Catcher said:


> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.



And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?

And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again....a bunch of backward barbarians fought us to the point where cowardly politicians, and lazy people have decided to call it quits.....we are bringing our troops home and ceding the land back to the monsters....and yet you think that the American people, better and more plentifully armed than those barbarians couldn't resist to the point that our own government...who would be targeted here, unlike they are now in the war effort, would eventually have to stop targeting our people....the stupidity and shallow thinking of anti gunners is truly amazing.....
> 
> The first thing any resistance movement has lacked, if you look at any war zone.....rifles and pistols.....which then have to be acquired somehow....usually from third parties......us....we already have them in great abundance....which is why we fight you jerks who try to take them away....
> 
> You morons have no understanding of history, or human nature.....you think that Western governments will never, ever build death camps again....based on what?  The fact that although it happened in the past...they won't do it again?  Real f*****g geniuses......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come from a military family.  On that narrow point,  sure, if the military were united in controlling the people, we'd have no chance, at least in the initial conflict.  But that wouldn't happen, it would have to be a faction in the military.  They would be fighting other military, like my family, as well as the people.  So the people being armed would matter.
> 
> Liberals like to boil down the debate to that one narrow thing though which is stupid.  It's like saying the only reason to have a car is to get ice cream.    That is one use of a car, but it's far from an accuate view of why we need cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like California dreamin.
> In practice it will lead to a total ban because it will be ineffective in stopping gun violence.  And just think: invite your nephew on a hunt and give him a 30-30 to try out and suddenly both of you are felons.  Good bye gun rights!
> Fortunately the Constitution prohibits such idiocy so we wont see it any time soon.
Click to expand...


Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and you're not and have never proved to be prescient.

*"may",*  "and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license".

If you could read and comprehend I wouldn;t consider you the fool you you always prove to be.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
Click to expand...


Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come from a military family.  On that narrow point,  sure, if the military were united in controlling the people, we'd have no chance, at least in the initial conflict.  But that wouldn't happen, it would have to be a faction in the military.  They would be fighting other military, like my family, as well as the people.  So the people being armed would matter.
> 
> Liberals like to boil down the debate to that one narrow thing though which is stupid.  It's like saying the only reason to have a car is to get ice cream.    That is one use of a car, but it's far from an accuate view of why we need cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like California dreamin.
> In practice it will lead to a total ban because it will be ineffective in stopping gun violence.  And just think: invite your nephew on a hunt and give him a 30-30 to try out and suddenly both of you are felons.  Good bye gun rights!
> Fortunately the Constitution prohibits such idiocy so we wont see it any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and you're not and have never proved to be prescient.
> 
> *"may",*  "and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license".
> 
> If you could read and comprehend I wouldn;t consider you the fool you you always prove to be.
Click to expand...


Yet when it comes to abortion, suddenly any restriction is a slippery slope, isn't it?


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why there will not ever be death camps.  First it has never happened to any modern country with real voting rights.  Second the people and troops aren't going to be fooled like they were in the past.  Now we have the internet, 24 hour news, cell phones...  Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as long as our society has weapons....it sure won't....at least not without great cost to the people trying it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come from a military family.  On that narrow point,  sure, if the military were united in controlling the people, we'd have no chance, at least in the initial conflict.  But that wouldn't happen, it would have to be a faction in the military.  They would be fighting other military, like my family, as well as the people.  So the people being armed would matter.
> 
> Liberals like to boil down the debate to that one narrow thing though which is stupid.  It's like saying the only reason to have a car is to get ice cream.    That is one use of a car, but it's far from an accuate view of why we need cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like California dreamin.
> In practice it will lead to a total ban because it will be ineffective in stopping gun violence.  And just think: invite your nephew on a hunt and give him a 30-30 to try out and suddenly both of you are felons.  Good bye gun rights!
> Fortunately the Constitution prohibits such idiocy so we wont see it any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slippery slope is a logical fallacy and you're not and have never proved to be prescient.
> 
> *"may",*  "and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license".
> 
> If you could read and comprehend I wouldn;t consider you the fool you you always prove to be.
Click to expand...

Is California more restrictive on guns or less restrictive since 1968?
Trusting some judge to dismiss charges is a real bad idea.
Here's a bettre one: Just follow the Constitution. 'kay?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
Click to expand...


Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?

What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
Click to expand...

Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
Click to expand...


That's cause you're stupid.

Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.

I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:

*Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?


----------



## Wry Catcher

They're too stupid to have a plan to answer the question asked in the OP.


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
Click to expand...



How about a tax on the words a writer uses, that would make it more expensive to insult people on the internet and in magazines and blogs....like the one he wants on ammo...and guns...put a user fee on words and computers and taxes...in fact....you should need to get a license for any means of communication...computers, tablets, smart phones.....that way the government will know that you aren't using those things for slander, libel, for selling illegal substances....organizing criminal activity with them.....sounds great....f**k the Bill of Rights....the government needs to control us so we don't do stupid stuff....why stop at just guns.......?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> They're too stupid to have a plan to answer the question asked in the OP.



So you seriously think you answered it with State licensing?  That will keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  We have State licensing now, Homey, and criminals have lots of guns.  Your plan didn't work.  But you think we are the stupid ones?  With your plan being what we do now that isn't working now?   LOL.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?



You calling anyone a "jerk" is just too funny.  And if you read my original post, which you obviously didn't, you would know my plan.  We can't, let honest citizens defend ourselves without government interference.  States which allow citizens more ability to defend themselves have fewer shootings to start with.  There's a reason for that.  It's the same reason mass shooters like to go to gun free zones.  Like the parking lot of a military instillation.  How stupid is that being a gun free zone?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about a tax on the words a writer uses, that would make it more expensive to insult people on the internet and in magazines and blogs....like the one he wants on ammo...and guns...put a user fee on words and computers and taxes...in fact....you should need to get a license for any means of communication...computers, tablets, smart phones.....that way the government will know that you aren't using those things for slander, libel, for selling illegal substances....organizing criminal activity with them.....sounds great....f**k the Bill of Rights....the government needs to control us so we don't do stupid stuff....why stop at just guns.......?
Click to expand...


Gee, I'm sorry.  I left you out when I mentioned fools.  Mea culpa.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Gun free Zones and drug free zones are an administrative tool allowing the criminal justice system to add an enhancement to a sentence for violating any laws within a specified area.  Thus if someone commits even a low grade misdemeanor in such a zone, and has a gun in their possession, they can get a one year CJ enhancement to any sentence they may receive for the initial crime.

I'm so sorry if calling Kaz a jerk hurt his feelings.  But arrogant ignoramuses need to be put in their place.

Fees by the way are the new tax, as are enhancements and penalty assessments.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> More bull shit.  I've posted time over time my position on gun control; yet liars by omission - you, Rabbit and a number of others - lump me and all liberals into the same think tank and label us gun grabbers.  That's a lie and if you don't know it you're brain dead.
> 
> I'll spell it out to you one more time Kaz, though being the dishonest lying member of the crazy right wing you'll continue to make false, misleading and iniquitous allegations to the contrary.
> 
> All citizens who are sober, sane and have no history violent behavior, have never been detained as a danger to themselves or others should have the absolute right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, to protect their family, their home or business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All persons who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control of gun, need to be licensed by their State of Residence.
> 
> Those persons who have proven a need to carry a weapon in public need to have prior permission from the law enforcement agencies where the weapon will be carried as well as the license issued by the state.
> 
> All other persons who own, possess or have in their custody or control or provides to an unlicensed person a gun, *may* suffer the consequences of jail, fine, probation or confiscation of all firearms.  Of course jail and the confiscation of all firearms will be the consequence for all serial offenders and first time offenders may have the charges dismissed if they are able to meet the standards set forth to obtain a license.
> 
> Anyone who sells, gives, loans or otherwise provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a felony, and may have their license suspended or revoked if they are licensed, and licensed or not face other penalties as proscribed by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?
Click to expand...

You cant explain it and that makes me stupid?
Here's my plan: You can never keep guns from the hands of criminals. Deal with that first.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> Gun free Zones and drug free zones are an administrative tool allowing the criminal justice system to add an enhancement to a sentence for violating any laws within a specified area.  Thus if someone commits even a low grade misdemeanor in such a zone, and has a gun in their possession, they can get a one year CJ enhancement to any sentence they may receive for the initial crime.
> 
> I'm so sorry if calling Kaz a jerk hurt his feelings.  But arrogant ignoramuses need to be put in their place.
> 
> Fees by the way are the new tax, as are enhancements and penalty assessments.


OK that still wont keep guns from the hands of criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Gun free Zones and drug free zones are an administrative tool allowing the criminal justice system to add an enhancement to a sentence for violating any laws within a specified area.  Thus if someone commits even a low grade misdemeanor in such a zone, and has a gun in their possession, they can get a one year CJ enhancement to any sentence they may receive for the initial crime.
> 
> I'm so sorry if calling Kaz a jerk hurt his feelings.  But arrogant ignoramuses need to be put in their place.
> 
> Fees by the way are the new tax, as are enhancements and penalty assessments.




Yeah....it is already another felony for a felon to have in his possession a gun of any sort....so when the felon is going to the school to commit mass murder......do you really think that making it a gun free zone has any benefit at all.....other than to keep law abiding citizens from having a gun when the asshole comes in shooting?  Or to scare law abiding citizens from carrying guns for self defense since they are the only ones who will really lose if they accidentally bring a gun onto school grounds under these stupid "gun free" zone laws....

That is the real purpose....to scare regular people with felonies and jail time for practicing their right to self defense....anti gunners are morons.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The absolute right with the following limits, ...  Don't know what "absolute means, do you sparky?
> 
> And you believe this will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that government licenses law abiding gun owners?  Seriously?
> 
> And still you don't answer the question if since you believe the Second Amendment right can be granted only to those who the State approves and pay ongoing fees, can they do that with our first Amendment right to free speech?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant explain it and that makes me stupid?
> Here's my plan: You can never keep guns from the hands of criminals. Deal with that first.
Click to expand...


No, I had nothing to do with you being stupid.  

That you don't understand the word mitigate is sad beyond comment.  You were fast on the draw in taking my sarcastic comment to cut off their hands, but failed to comprehend that comment was not meant to be a solution, it was meant as a criticism of the thread itself.

I believe we can mitigate gun violence in America, maybe this article will make the curious agree with me; I have no hope for the willfully ignorant and the stupid.

U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Apparently it is to keep law abiding citizens from having guns...


----------



## 2aguy

U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News

Yeah...already debunked....and the point....after the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium....?  The fact that when criminals in any country want or need guns...they get them...regardless of any gun control laws those countries impose....it isn't the guns but the attitude of the criminal that creates gun crime...change the attitude and culture of the criminal and you will lower the gun crime rate.....


----------



## 2aguy

Another look at guns and crime in the world....


Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn t Decrease Violence




> In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh.  More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison.





> “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.





> Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”





> The study goes on to say:
> 
> …the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).* But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.*





> The paper resurfaced at a time when Boston itself has been looking for ways to combat gun violence, and gun-related deaths, after a sharp uptick in shootings in the city this year.
> 
> As of July, more than 100 people had been impacted by shootings in Boston in some way, and more than 17 people had been killed in the city by someone with a firearm. The increase in incidents showed a nearly 30 percent increase in gun-related deaths compared with the same time period in 2012. That number has gone up slightly since then.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant explain it and that makes me stupid?
> Here's my plan: You can never keep guns from the hands of criminals. Deal with that first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I had nothing to do with you being stupid.
> 
> That you don't understand the word mitigate is sad beyond comment.  You were fast on the draw in taking my sarcastic comment to cut off their hands, but failed to comprehend that comment was not meant to be a solution, it was meant as a criticism of the thread itself.
> 
> I believe we can mitigate gun violence in America, maybe this article will make the curious agree with me; I have no hope for the willfully ignorant and the stupid.
> 
> U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News
Click to expand...

OK so you admit you have zero plan to keep guns from criminals, which is the topic of this thread.  Try to keep up, really.
And your proposals will not even mitigate gun villence.  They basically failed in Chicago.


----------



## 2aguy

And again.....more and more Americans are owning and carrying guns and the gun murder and accident rate is going down...not up.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Apparently it is to keep law abiding citizens from having guns...



I believe we can mitigate gun violence in America, maybe this article will make the curious agree with me; I have no hope for the willfully ignorant and the stupid.

U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News


----------



## Wry Catcher

Billc said:


> And again.....more and more Americans are owning and carrying guns and the gun murder and accident rate is going down...not up.....



The _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

See:  post hoc fallacy - The Skeptic s Dictionary - Skepdic.com


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again.....more and more Americans are owning and carrying guns and the gun murder and accident rate is going down...not up.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.
> 
> See:  post hoc fallacy - The Skeptic s Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Click to expand...



Or....it just shows that each time a state was considering open or concealed carry, the anti gun nuts said it would turn the state into "Dodge City"....and this simple point shows that with more Americans carrying guns for self defense.....that didn't happen......the crime rate.....for whatever the series of reasons behind it may be......did not increase with more law abiding citizens carrying a gun.....one of the primary memes of the anti gun nuts....

So again....guns do not cause crime....criminals with the desire to use guns cause crime and mass shootings...the 3 terrorists in France, one of whom was a convicted criminal on a government terrorist watch list, were able to get fully automatic rifles, hand grenades and a rocket propelled grenade.......in a country that has gun control far stricter than our country does......

Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories....has one of the highest gun murder rates in the world...and it is an isolated island, and guns can't just be driven across a border....

Canada....stricter gun control than the U.S. and that did not stop the terrorist from killing that soldier or attacking the Canadian parliament...

Australia....has gun control far stricter than the U.S. and is constantly used to mock the United States on gun control...a terrorist got his hands on a gun and killed 4 people.....as well, gun crime in Australia is confined to biker gangs and the immigrant communites on this Island nation...

Belgium....again...stricter gun control than the U.S. and yet they supplied the guns, grenades and launcher to the French terrorists, and had their own terrorist incident with illegal guns......

Europe may have a lower murder rate in some cases than the U.S. but that is only the due to their criminals not wanting to use guns....the last incidents show that if they want guns, they can get guns......

Train inner city gangs to not use guns.....there, gun problem solved.....


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are gun dealers licensed?  On going fees, I never wrote that.  Better to put a tax on ammo and guns, a user fee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant explain it and that makes me stupid?
> Here's my plan: You can never keep guns from the hands of criminals. Deal with that first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I had nothing to do with you being stupid.
> 
> That you don't understand the word mitigate is sad beyond comment.  You were fast on the draw in taking my sarcastic comment to cut off their hands, but failed to comprehend that comment was not meant to be a solution, it was meant as a criticism of the thread itself.
> 
> I believe we can mitigate gun violence in America, maybe this article will make the curious agree with me; I have no hope for the willfully ignorant and the stupid.
> 
> U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners have to pay to maintain licenses, you didn't know that?
> 
> What about free speech, can we tax and put user fees on it?  Or are some Amendments in the Bill of Rights more equal than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant explain it and that makes me stupid?
> Here's my plan: You can never keep guns from the hands of criminals. Deal with that first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I had nothing to do with you being stupid.
> 
> That you don't understand the word mitigate is sad beyond comment.  You were fast on the draw in taking my sarcastic comment to cut off their hands, but failed to comprehend that comment was not meant to be a solution, it was meant as a criticism of the thread itself.
> 
> I believe we can mitigate gun violence in America, maybe this article will make the curious agree with me; I have no hope for the willfully ignorant and the stupid.
> 
> U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
Click to expand...


You really need to stop pretending you understand logical fallacies or continue to prove you're an arrogant ignoramus.

The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast An easy way to learn the logical fallacies. Published each day Monday-Friday.The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast An easy way to learn the logical fallacies. Published each day Monday-Friday.

I suggest you sign up ^^^.  It might make a debate with you substantive and challenging, for than now your efforts are a read for laughter.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun dealers are licensed to allow them to engage in commerce in guns.
> Despite that there are many unlicensed dealers.  I fail to see the connection here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's cause you're stupid.
> 
> Do you know what the thread title is?  Likely not, since your biases cloud any judgment you might have if you were not mentally challenged.
> 
> I'll help since you and Kaz are too stupid, too biased and frankly jerks:
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> What is your plan Rabbit, Kaz?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant explain it and that makes me stupid?
> Here's my plan: You can never keep guns from the hands of criminals. Deal with that first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I had nothing to do with you being stupid.
> 
> That you don't understand the word mitigate is sad beyond comment.  You were fast on the draw in taking my sarcastic comment to cut off their hands, but failed to comprehend that comment was not meant to be a solution, it was meant as a criticism of the thread itself.
> 
> I believe we can mitigate gun violence in America, maybe this article will make the curious agree with me; I have no hope for the willfully ignorant and the stupid.
> 
> U.S. Has More Guns 8211 And Gun Deaths 8211 Than Any Other Country Study Finds - ABC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to stop pretending you understand logical fallacies or continue to prove you're an arrogant ignoramus.
> 
> The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast An easy way to learn the logical fallacies. Published each day Monday-Friday.The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast An easy way to learn the logical fallacies. Published each day Monday-Friday.
> 
> I suggest you sign up ^^^.  It might make a debate with you substantive and challenging, for than now your efforts are a read for laughter.
Click to expand...


Someone having a substantiation and challenging debate with you?  Wow, that would be impressive.


----------



## MikeK

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


You've asked an important question here, one which in spite of how obvious it is rarely asked and *never* answered.

And you've presented an equally important and obvious analogy, which is drug prohibition.  Governments have done everything allowable within Constitutional constraints, as well as a few things which exceed those constraints, and in spite of four decades of increasingly fanatical anti-drug efforts any type of drug which anyone has money to buy is readily available within ten miles (or two blocks) of any inhabited part of the United States. 

Still, the bullshit goes on with the so-called "war on drugs" having evolved into several extremely profitable businesses, piss-testing and private prisons outstanding, and millions of Americans are employed in this clearly futile pursuit; cops, lawyers, judges, court personnel, prison officials, parole and probation officers, and millions of futures are ruined by the "criminal record"  consequent to arrest for simple possession of even a recreational substance as relatively harmless as marijuana. 

The "war on drugs" is a serious social malignancy


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem

Wry Catcher said:


> Gun free Zones and drug free zones are an administrative tool allowing the criminal justice system to add an enhancement to a sentence for violating any laws within a specified area.  Thus if someone commits even a low grade misdemeanor in such a zone, and has a gun in their possession, they can get a one year CJ enhancement to any sentence they may receive for the initial crime.
> 
> I'm so sorry if calling Kaz a jerk hurt his feelings.  But arrogant ignoramuses need to be put in their place.
> 
> Fees by the way are the new tax, as are enhancements and penalty assessments.



Gun free zones make criminals out of law abiding citizens.  Drug free zones do not.


----------



## MikeK

Billc said:


> And again.....more and more Americans are owning and carrying guns and the gun murder and accident rate is going down...not up.....


I haven't bothered to research that for accuracy but I'll take your word for it -- mainly because I want to believe it.  

I have always believed the cause of much crime is the universal prohibition against concealed carry.  I believe an armed society is a polite and safe society.  

If there were no laws against carrying guns the vast majority of violent crazies would be dead by now and our population would be acclimated to safe and proper conduct while armed.  But the gun laws have prevented that orientation to evolve over time and if the prohibition were lifted today there would be an explosion of precipitous gun violence until all the screwballs are eliminated, which will take time.


----------



## MikeK

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Gun free zones make criminals out of law abiding citizens.  Drug free zones do not.


They certainly do.  

The utterly insane drug laws, and _drug free zones,_ have packed the prisons with individuals who have never harmed anyone, nor would they, and have ruined the lives of millions more by stigmatizing them with "criminal" records for "offenses" as trivial as possession of a few grams of marijuana.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Wry Catcher said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again.....more and more Americans are owning and carrying guns and the gun murder and accident rate is going down...not up.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.
Click to expand...

The hysterical gun-haters have been insisting that if more people own guns, more violence will result.

But the opposite has been happening.

The gun-haters are clearly wrong.


----------



## kaz

boilermaker55 said:


> It should strike everyone that follows the argumentative style of the right wingers. When the politics or legal system from another country fits so conveniently into their argument they use it. However, if it doesn't their quick and only response is to those that have another point of view........."move if you don't like it here."
> Funny.]



Liberals tell me that all the time


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



The Copenhagen shooting, the guy got off an estimated 200 rounds before presumedly running out of ammo and fleeing. That's what'll happen in every society that bans firearms. Only bad guys will have them, and they'll use them unchallenged.


----------



## kaz

Delta4Embassy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Copenhagen shooting, the guy got off an estimated 200 rounds before presumedly running out of ammo and fleeing. That's what'll happen in every society that bans firearms. Only bad guys will have them, and they'll use them unchallenged.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if you saw my first response, I misread it.


----------



## kaz

boilermaker55 said:


> What do you propose?
> More prisons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing Rabbit, now look up the form of questions I posted for evidence you are what you accuse me of being; then read all of my responses.  IM(not so)HO your lack of substance and inability to defend your ideology (Crazy Right Winger) has many explanations, not the least of which is you're poorly educated and have a callous disregard for anyone and any idea which threatens your ego.  You may not be dull normal, but there is no evidence to suggest that is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> That still doesnt answer the question of what gun laws do you support that will reduce or eliminate gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


To keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Well, that is a start, keep them in prison


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Rabbi(t) doesn't propose anything, he's basically a whiner; in thousands of posts, he has never had a sagacious moment or shown any interest in thinking outside the box of the current conservative dogma.



Rabbi gets the thread, you don't.  The point is you can't.  So all gun laws do it allow only criminals to be armed.  Tell the truth, you didn't read my first post explaining that, did you?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Copenhagen shooting, the guy got off an estimated 200 rounds before presumedly running out of ammo and fleeing. That's what'll happen in every society that bans firearms. Only bad guys will have them, and they'll use them unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if we have gun laws, both criminals and non-criminals will have guns.
> 
> If we don't have gun laws, only criminals will have guns.
> 
> What?
> 
> You're going to have to walk me through that logic, sparky.
Click to expand...



What good are gun laws if by definition, someone using a firearm criminally doesn't not do their crime because of the law, or some posted "gun free zone" sign?

Laws only effect law-abidding people, not criminals. And in a country like the US where there's about as many guns in private hands as there are people, legislating the problem away is impossible because even a full ban on new sales still leaves over 300 million in distribution. Countries with long standing bans like in Europe fair better only because it's had so much time to do its thing there aren't many guns in circulation anyway. But it's an unfair comparison to try and claim gun laws work because they work in countries where guns have been illegal for generations. Of course they work there, there aren't that many to begin with. The laws there then are redundant.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Asking the same question over and over can be a logical fallacy, something the right wing seems particularly adept at - maybe the only thing.  For those who need some explanation why this particular form or rhetoric is used by Rabbi and others members of the Crazy Right Wing, look up "Complex Question" or "Loaded Question".  In addition to being annoying, asking the same thing over and over is quite childish.



Evading a question over and over is something the left seems particularly adept at - maybe the only thing


----------



## kaz

Delta4Embassy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Copenhagen shooting, the guy got off an estimated 200 rounds before presumedly running out of ammo and fleeing. That's what'll happen in every society that bans firearms. Only bad guys will have them, and they'll use them unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if we have gun laws, both criminals and non-criminals will have guns.
> 
> If we don't have gun laws, only criminals will have guns.
> 
> What?
> 
> You're going to have to walk me through that logic, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What good are gun laws if by definition, someone using a firearm criminally doesn't not do their crime because of the law, or some posted "gun free zone" sign?
> 
> Laws only effect law-abidding people, not criminals. And in a country like the US where there's about as many guns in private hands as there are people, legislating the problem away is impossible because even a full ban on new sales still leaves over 300 million in distribution. Countries with long standing bans like in Europe fair better only because it's had so much time to do its thing there aren't many guns in circulation anyway. But it's an unfair comparison to try and claim gun laws work because they work in countries where guns have been illegal for generations. Of course they work there, there aren't that many to begin with. The laws there then are redundant.
Click to expand...


Mea Culpa, I did post that I'd misread your post, but you'd copied it before I saw that.  It's on me.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Copenhagen shooting, the guy got off an estimated 200 rounds before presumedly running out of ammo and fleeing. That's what'll happen in every society that bans firearms. Only bad guys will have them, and they'll use them unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, if you saw my first response, I misread it.
Click to expand...


Ok


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way for progressives to keep guns out of the hands of criminals would be to not buy them. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying?  Just don't bother, that's what it's worth.
Click to expand...


LOL, the irony of your non-content post to make that point...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way for progressives to keep guns out of the hands of criminals would be to not buy them. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying?  Just don't bother, that's what it's worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, the irony of your non-content post to make that point...
Click to expand...

What goes around comes around, many weeks later.


----------



## kaz

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best way for progressives to keep guns out of the hands of criminals would be to not buy them. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying?  Just don't bother, that's what it's worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, the irony of your non-content post to make that point...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What goes around comes around, many weeks later.
Click to expand...


I keep up the best I can, I get a lot of replies.  Besides, you post nothing on a continual basis, the point is still timely


----------



## kaz

So RW, in honor of your thread

What's your plan, big guy?


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> You come on here day after day about how bad you have it as gun owners continue to slaughter other Americans



So what's your plan, big guy?


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You come on here day after day about how bad you have it as gun owners continue to slaughter other Americans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your plan, big guy?
Click to expand...



And continue to stop or prevent violent criminals and save lives..to the tune of 1.6 million a year......gun murders in 2013...8,454....accidental gun deaths 2013...505....

So....try to do the math...........


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You come on here day after day about how bad you have it as gun owners continue to slaughter other Americans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's your plan, big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And continue to stop or prevent violent criminals and save lives..to the tune of 1.6 million a year......gun murders in 2013...8,454....accidental gun deaths 2013...505....
> 
> So....try to do the math...........
Click to expand...


We won't get an answer, RW likes to hit and run ... away ...


----------



## kaz

ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

​


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?



You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.

Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _ 
_
Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.

Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.



So you're saying that there is no way to establish guilt of a crime, until a crime has been committed?

Why... by God _THAT'S *BRILLIANT!*_

(Reader, there's just no better way to determine that a quality google search has been performed, than to observe a Relativist, using latin.)

Of course, that circumstance suggests that since crime happens as a consequence of a guilty mind, that there exist minds out their who have, are and will be acting out in in ways which threaten the lives of innocent people.

And despite YOU being the one to note this fact of nature, you seem to be indicating that people who arm themselves as a means to avoid becoming the innocent victim, are presenting themselves as guilty, despite the evidence YOU present, arguing that such is not the case, based upon millennia's experience which informs us that a guilty mind requires a guilty action.

Now, man's spirit was created in the image of God.  Thus it falls to every man who lives free, thus who possesses the spirit of God, to defend his life and those of others around him; his family, friends and neighbors as he would defend his own life and that of God.  

That human life which possesses God's spirit is precious, it follows that such is valuable beyond all else.  Yet you're suggesting on the one hand that such is not the case, even as you come to lament 'killing', when all reason argues that killing, in and of itself is a necessity... as it sustains life where such is done to feed us and where such is done to defend innocent life.  

So... where does it fit that 'killing' is bad, but not defending one's spirit filled life, is also bad; which is to say to take measures to defend innocent life through the ownership and effective use of a state of the art firearm?

Help a brother out here, will ya?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
Click to expand...




Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.

As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post


----------



## kaz

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that there is no way to establish guilt of a crime, until a crime has been committed?
> 
> Why... by God _THAT'S *BRILLIANT!*_
Click to expand...


Yes, I believe both right and left as well as libertarians and even anarchists universally consider Wry to be the brains of the site.  Here is another exemplary reason why.  He is the one who noticed the green in the grass and the blue in the sky


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that there is no way to establish guilt of a crime, until a crime has been committed?
> 
> Why... by God _THAT'S *BRILLIANT!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe both right and left as well as libertarians and even anarchists universally consider Wry to be the brains of the site.  Here is another exemplary reason why.  He is the one who noticed the green in the grass and the blue in the sky
Click to expand...



Hey...for a lefty that is pretty good.....it takes year of exposure to conservative thought for a leftist to see that much truth and reality in the world........


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
Click to expand...


"Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.


----------



## ElmerMudd

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


==========================================================
*UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## 2aguy

ElmerMudd said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> *UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
Click to expand...



How do universal background checks work exactly...since right now the very techniques used to get past current, mandatory background checks will work on universal background checks the moment they go on line...

Straw purchases...get past all background checks
Stealing guns....gets past all background checks...

Those are the two ways criminals get the majority of all their illegal guns....

So...please explain the mechanics of universal background checks that will stop the two most popular ways that criminals get guns.....

Don't worry, none of the other gun grabbers were able to do it either......


----------



## birddog

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are frustrated because you are so wrong, you know you are wrong, but you are too biased or stupid to admit it!
> Join the NRA and learn something, you ignoramus!
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
Click to expand...


----------



## birddog

birddog said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you are frustrated because you are so wrong, you know you are wrong, but you are too biased or stupid to admit it!
> Join the NRA and learn something, you ignoramus!
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are frustrated by ignorance.  Join the NRA and learn something!  Geeez!


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
Click to expand...


Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.

Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.

What a dumb ass you are.

Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.

So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.


----------



## kaz

ElmerMudd said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> *UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
Click to expand...


Is that sarcasm?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> ==========================================================
> *UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do universal background checks work exactly...since right now the very techniques used to get past current, mandatory background checks will work on universal background checks the moment they go on line...
> 
> Straw purchases...get past all background checks
> Stealing guns....gets past all background checks...
> 
> Those are the two ways criminals get the majority of all their illegal guns....
> 
> So...please explain the mechanics of universal background checks that will stop the two most popular ways that criminals get guns.....
> 
> Don't worry, none of the other gun grabbers were able to do it either......
Click to expand...


Pot is outright illegal and teenagers get all the pot they want.  Background checks limit honest citizens from owning guns, not criminals, which is my whole point


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
Click to expand...


First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.  

I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:


Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
The OP is a loaded question:

Your logical fallacy is loaded question

I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.

That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:

Anyone convicted of a violent felony
Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.



And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally.  On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law.  So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op.  You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL.  Thanks for playing, but you lost.  Here's our board game version to take home with you.  Don't go away mad, just go away.

LOL, liberals, classic


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally.  On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law.  So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op.  You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL.  Thanks for playing, but you lost.  Here's our board game version to take home with you.  Don't go away mad, just go away.
> 
> LOL, liberals, classic
Click to expand...


My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally".  That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind.  In fact it's a LIE.

Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes.  Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.

I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens.  I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct.  Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally.  On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law.  So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op.  You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL.  Thanks for playing, but you lost.  Here's our board game version to take home with you.  Don't go away mad, just go away.
> 
> LOL, liberals, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally".  That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind.  In fact it's a LIE.


Then your post was irrelevant since that is the subject of the thread.  So what is the purpose of licensing guns if you are not claiming that will stop criminals from getting them exactly, Holmes?



Wry Catcher said:


> Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes.  Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.


What a dumb ass.  Word parsing is such a great argument ... not ...




Wry Catcher said:


> I would like to see





Wry Catcher said:


> guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens.  I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct.  Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.



Right, and your plan is to only restrict ownership for honest, sane and sober citizens


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally.  On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law.  So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op.  You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL.  Thanks for playing, but you lost.  Here's our board game version to take home with you.  Don't go away mad, just go away.
> 
> LOL, liberals, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally".  That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind.  In fact it's a LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your post was irrelevant since that is the subject of the thread.  So what is the purpose of licensing guns if you are not claiming that will stop criminals from getting them exactly, Holmes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes.  Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a dumb ass.  Word parsing is such a great argument ... not ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens.  I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct.  Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and your plan is to only restrict ownership for honest, sane and sober citizens
Click to expand...


My plan was to demonstrate the fallacy of the loaded question.  Your efforts to rebut my claim - easily verified by reading the link supplied - was to post several common logical fallacies (Straw Man, Red Herring and Ad Hominem).

I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens.  That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?


----------



## hunarcy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your theory is that one thing criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally.  On the other hand, by definition honest citizens don't break the law.  So what you have done, Holmes, is agree with my op.  You only want to restrict gun ownership for honest citizens, LOL.  Thanks for playing, but you lost.  Here's our board game version to take home with you.  Don't go away mad, just go away.
> 
> LOL, liberals, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion included not a word which could be inferred by anyone who reads with comprehension that "criminals won't do is break the law and buy a gun illegally".  That is one more logical fallacy (Straw Man), and I'm being kind.  In fact it's a LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then your post was irrelevant since that is the subject of the thread.  So what is the purpose of licensing guns if you are not claiming that will stop criminals from getting them exactly, Holmes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest citizens break the law everyday (I hope that paradox isn't too abstract for you) and that is why we have penal codes.  Speed and you get a ticket and a fine; steal and you get jail and a fine; sell a gun to an unlicensed person and you woujld lose your license and pay a fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a dumb ass.  Word parsing is such a great argument ... not ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens.  I know that's not practical, not possible and I know the NRA and its members care only about their rights, not the rights of others; they will never stop falsely claiming the Second A. is sacrosanct.  Heller was one vote short of proving this claim wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and your plan is to only restrict ownership for honest, sane and sober citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan was to demonstrate the fallacy of the loaded question.  Your efforts to rebut my claim - easily verified by reading the link supplied - was to post several common logical fallacies (Straw Man, Red Herring and Ad Hominem).
> 
> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens.  That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?
Click to expand...


I would love to see society restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens by taking those who don't fit that description removed from society and either incarcerated or restricted to hospitals to get the mental health treatments they need, rather than letting them wander about suffering and creating problems for honest, sane and sober citizens.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

kaz said:


> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.


Really? I actually had some trouble getting "as pot as I want" in H.S. Took me weeks just to set up a deal for a 1/4 lb, and in the end all the dude had was 3 oz. I think you're full of shit.


----------



## kaz

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I actually had some trouble getting "as pot as I want" in H.S. Took me weeks just to set up a deal for a 1/4 lb, and in the end all the dude had was 3 oz. I think you're full of shit.
Click to expand...


Well Holmes, apparently the other kids don't trust you.  Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens



No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't



Wry Catcher said:


> That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?



Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
Click to expand...




> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.



You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......

If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....

I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.

For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......

and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....

Right Wrycatcher?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?
Click to expand...


[I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]

Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
Click to expand...


No, not correct 

"You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?

I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
Click to expand...



No, you haven't....you simply say...make people get a license....that is not explaining anything....I have shown you....again and again and just in my last post, that licensing is not needed, and neither is registration of guns......all you have to do is arrest people committing  crimes with guns and arrest convicted criminals who own or carry guns....

Therefore there is no need to register guns or license owners....

Please....explain why you need either one......


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
Click to expand...



You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
Click to expand...


So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal would say "no one respond(ed)" in post number ... wait for it ... 3503 ... of a thread.  What a dim wit.
> 
> As for the rest, none of it answered the question.  Why don't you give it a go, it's pretty clear in the OP post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
Click to expand...


So no one can read or speak English but you.  Deflection anyone?


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
Click to expand...



Let me dumb it down, just for you:

Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding

By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.

A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.

I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.

IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Only a liberal" yada yada yada; most of the Crazy Right Wing echo the same crap over and over - it may only seem to be a sign that its collective membership is dumb and unable to put together a concise and sagacious post, but they do so much to often for it not to be evidence of inherent foolishness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no one can read or speak English but you.  Deflection anyone?
Click to expand...


Yeah sure, many can; you obviously will not or can not understand the written word.  The jury is out, are you willfully ignorant or intellectually impaired?  That is a legitimate question.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
Click to expand...


Major difference.  

Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders

Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
Click to expand...



And again....everything you just listed...is already the fucking law..............


> Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.



Moron.....this can already be done because of current laws about guns......you don't need to add the extra paperwork of a license....if you break those laws you pointed out.....You already lose your ability to own or carry a gun....




> Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.




Again....a license is not needed....you can't sell or give a gun to a criminal....it is already against the law...so again, a license is not needed by a gun owner......

And dude......the current gun laws haven't slowed down criminals or mass shooters from gettng guns....and not one thing you just posted would stop it either.....

Criminals get their guns through straw purchases and stealing them.....not one thing you said changes that in any way....you can make people get super, duper, extra special licences with sugar on top......and criminals will still get guns through straw purchases and stealing guns


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go back to what I said only a liberal would do.
> 
> Only a liberal would go into a thread and on post 3503 tell the OP that he isn't going to get any replies to his OP post.
> 
> What a dumb ass you are.
> 
> Also, do you have an actual answer to the question?  How are you going to keep guns from criminals when you can't keep pot from high schoolers?  Ask any high schooler you know if they could hook you up with some weed, you will get a yes.  So how are you going to keep guns from criminals?  And even beyond that, you make sure anyone can walk across our border unchecked carrying all the guns they want.
> 
> So, Holmes, what is your plan?  Stop hiding and step up to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no one can read or speak English but you.  Deflection anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah sure, many can; you obviously will not or can not understand the written word.  The jury is out, are you willfully ignorant or intellectually impaired?  That is a legitimate question.
Click to expand...


Yet you still can't answer the question.  All you have is let's go with registering guns because we have to try something and it's not your fault they don't work.

What about other Constitutional rights?  Can we limit free speech or say the right to freedom from illegal search and seizure limited to those who apply for a license, pay a fee and get approved from Government?


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
Click to expand...



Exactly........they don't really care about criminals getting guns...their policy choices show it....they just hate normal people who want to own guns and they know they can punish those people with the right laws....the more confusing the better.......


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
Click to expand...


Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals. 

Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly........they don't really care about criminals getting guns...their policy choices show it....they just hate normal people who want to own guns and they know they can punish those people with the right laws....the more confusing the better.......
Click to expand...


It's about government power.

“Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater.” -- _Peter Venetoklis_.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
Click to expand...


Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.

That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly........they don't really care about criminals getting guns...their policy choices show it....they just hate normal people who want to own guns and they know they can punish those people with the right laws....the more confusing the better.......
Click to expand...


There is nothing normal about you!


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote I would like to see guns restricted to honest, sane and sober citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would include the vast majority of citizens.  Maybe you've been busted for too many DUI's, or threatened to harm or kill others, or been detained as a danger to others - and feel my opinion is too harsh?  If so, tell us oh wise one, who should not own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
Click to expand...


Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Watson, I have no plan to chase after your red herrings.
> 
> I have answered the question *[**Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan]  *several times.  Once again:
> 
> 
> Criminal, someone who has committed a crime
> Some mass murderers had no prior criminal record
> Some who murder for power or profit had no prior criminal record
> The OP is a loaded question:
> 
> Your logical fallacy is loaded question
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> That is not a solution to violent crime, nor does it put a burden on gun owners who have nothing to hide.  Those who IMO should never be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun:
> 
> Anyone convicted of a violent felony
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, child abuse or animal abuse
> Anyone convicted of misdemeanor assault, battery or threatens another with great bodily injury or death and has the means (a gun) to do so.
> Anyone found to be addicted AOD (alcohol or other drugs).
> Any one to be convicted of DUI on three or more occasions
> Anyone ever detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others
> Thus any licensed person who knowingly provides in any manner a gun to someone unlicensed would be added to the list of those who should never again own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have offered an idea (a license to own, operate or have in ones' custody or control) in states which choose to pass and enforce such a law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
Click to expand...


Do you ever think before you post?  Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic



Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?[/QUOTE]

LOL, so my choices are gun laws that prevent people from being armed entirely, particularly when they need guns, or that every citizen has to be armed at all times.  I thought Republicans were the black and white party, LOL.  

In those cases, a few people being armed would have done the trick, but no one was armed. Well, other than the shooter.  How'd those gun free zones work out for you?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?  Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


If you don't speed, how do speed limits affect you?

If you are a criminal, gun laws do nothing to prevent you from getting a gun.  They just make you work a little harder


----------



## cygonaut

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



My plan is to make it more difficult to get a gun and suggest easier places the criminal can go, such as Alaska. 

The rush is on.


----------



## kaz

cygonaut said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My plan is to make it more difficult to get a gun and suggest easier places the criminal can go, such as Alaska.
> 
> The rush is on.
Click to expand...


Maybe you could be a little more specific about how exactly you're going to make it "more difficult to get a gun?"


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed.......
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> If you are comitting a crime with a gun and are caught...no license was needed to arrest you because you are actually breaking the law at the time of arrest......and if you are already a convicted criminal and are caught using or simply possessing a gun...no license is needed to make that illegal.......so again licensing law abiding citizens is just pointless paperwork....
> 
> I am not even interested in arresting people who may unknowingly sell guns to felons...if they are not selling large numbers of weapons.....why would I not care?  Because I don't want to scoop up the widow of a gun owner who is trying to get rid of her husbands gun, sells it to someone when she doesn't know she has to make sure the guy isn't a criminal.........no reason to send her away for years, or make her a felon.
> 
> For people knowingly selling in quantity to criminals....you can already arrest them by setting up a sting...and you don't bother the law abiding people......
> 
> and the thing is....if the widow sells the gun to a felon because she is unaware of the byzantine gun laws.....you can still arrest the actual criminal buying the gun because he still can't legally own it....again...no pointless paperwork needed....
> 
> Right Wrycatcher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?  Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.
Click to expand...



No one said the speed limit didn't have an effect on "Law abiding drivers" just like the current 22,000 gun laws affect law abiding gun owners.  Our current gun laws are already effective....if a someone uses a gun to commit a crime ( if someone speeds) then they are arrested (then they get a ticket)  but........they don't get a ticket until they break the speeding law......

so again...no registration of guns is needed, and no licensing of gun owners is needed.....if you commit a crime with a gun...you are already arrested for that....you don't need to license people to do that it happens already....

if you are a convicted criminal...and are caught in the mere possession of a gun.....you are already arrested for that....right now.....you don't need to license law abiding citizens to do that....it is already the law and it already happens....


What part of those processes do you not get?

Licensing and registration of gun owners and guns does nothing..........you can arrest anyone if they commit a crime with a gun, and you can arrest convicted criminals if they merely possess a gun.....

Again...no license needed and no registration of guns needed.....


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?  Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't speed, how do speed limits affect you?
> 
> If you are a criminal, gun laws do nothing to prevent you from getting a gun.  They just make you work a little harder
Click to expand...




> They just make you work a little harder



Actually, it doesn't make it harder for criminals to get guns....the 7 time convicted illegal alien had a gun in gun grabber paradise in San Francisco....do you know how long it would have taken that law abiding woman who was shot to get a gun in that state and city?

The various criminals in this country can get guns faster than the law abiding citizens can...they don't have to wait, they don't have to go through any checks...

In fact...in France it is easier for a criminal to get a fully automatic rifle with 30 round magazines than it is for a law abiding citizen to get a .22 bolt action rifle.......


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not correct
> 
> "You still haven't shown the mechanics of how a license is 1) necessary or 2) needed......."?
> 
> I have repeatedly, I'm not going to do it again since you are unable to comprehend written English, or are both dishonest and Willfully Ignorant (probably too dumb, but I'm being kind)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't answer the question because your answer doesn't address how licensing and registration do anything to stop crime.....so you keep blathering on and on....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let me dumb it down, just for you:
> 
> Speed Limits do not stop people from speeding
> 
> By your _reasoning_ (lol, I use this term loosely) there are no needs for laws.
> 
> A license which allows someone to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control can be suspended or revoked for cause.  Thus a person who commits a crime as I outlined above, or has been detained as a danger to themselves or others, can have their license suspended or revoked, and their guns surrendered or taken.
> 
> I'm not going to get into the details or definitions since I'm not writing a law.  Suffice it to write, once again, that a licensed person who provides a gun to an unlicensed person will lose their guns.  That should slow down the proliferation of guns into the hands of those who seek to do harm.
> 
> IT IS NOT A PANACEA, IT IS ONE MEANS TO TRY TO MITIGATE GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.
> 
> I've posted this a dozen times, only idiots (like you) keep asking the same question; a loaded question (which is a logical fallacy), something I've also pointed out ad nauseaum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major difference.
> 
> Speed limits affect speeders, they do not affect non speeders
> 
> Gun laws affect honest citizens, they do not affect criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever think before you post?  Speed limits have an effect on all driver's, some violate the speed laws and some don't don't, but to suggest the limit isn't effective in controlling most of the driver's most of the time is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one said the speed limit didn't have an effect on "Law abiding drivers" just like the current 22,000 gun laws affect law abiding gun owners.  Our current gun laws are already effective....if a someone uses a gun to commit a crime ( if someone speeds) then they are arrested (then they get a ticket)  but........they don't get a ticket until they break the speeding law......
> 
> so again...no registration of guns is needed, and no licensing of gun owners is needed.....if you commit a crime with a gun...you are already arrested for that....you don't need to license people to do that it happens already....
> 
> if you are a convicted criminal...and are caught in the mere possession of a gun.....you are already arrested for that....right now.....you don't need to license law abiding citizens to do that....it is already the law and it already happens....
> 
> 
> What part of those processes do you not get?
> 
> Licensing and registration of gun owners and guns does nothing..........you can arrest anyone if they commit a crime with a gun, and you can arrest convicted criminals if they merely possess a gun.....
> 
> Again...no license needed and no registration of guns needed.....
Click to expand...


Perfectly stated, you won't get a lucid response


----------



## 2aguy

Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?



Crickets....


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?



I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.

I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company. 

I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.

Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Steven_R said:


> The first story in the Bible after the expulsion from paradise is about a guy killing his brother with a rock. The gun is just a tool. Ban it, somehow get rid of them from every hand, and we'll still be killing each other over trivial nonsense and greed and lust.
> 
> It's not a problem with the tool, but the hand behind the tool. It's just easier to pretend it's the tool's fault when something goes pear-shaped.



This is not an original example nor does it take into account that a gun can and is used at a distance; a knife, rock, Garrote wire, etc., or the feet or fists need to be up close and personal, putting the killer at risk of injury or death.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Isn't attempted murder and murder already illegal? If so, how are additional laws going to prevent more instances of those two crimes?

Making a law to control guns is like reacting to drunk driving by passing laws restricting cars. 

It's not the gun that's the problem, it's people. What's really unfortunate though is they aren't abnormal or mentally ill by virtue of shooting somebody as our long bloody history of warfare with perfectly sane people attests. To the criminal the reason they shot somoene made perfect sense. Just like every time we go to war and slaughter people that makes sense too.

Never going to end violence when the ogvernment who's supposed to be the noble good example is doing all the shit we blame criminals for doing but by being the ones who makes the laws, says when they do it it's ok.


----------



## danielpalos

I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free.  Why are some Persons of religion being _illegal_ to the laws of a god?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.
> 
> I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.
> 
> I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.
> 
> Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.
Click to expand...



actually, no you didn't.  You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.


----------



## danielpalos

i believe well regulated militia service should include, concealed carry weapons qualification.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.
> 
> I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.
> 
> I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.
> 
> Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no you didn't.  You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.
Click to expand...


Stop being a three year old.  Let's agree, you're too dumb to get it, and I'm sick of responding to a moron.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.
> 
> I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.
> 
> I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.
> 
> Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no you didn't.  You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a three year old.  Let's agree, you're too dumb to get it, and I'm sick of responding to a moron.
Click to expand...



Allow me to translate:  My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........


----------



## hunarcy

Wry Catcher said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first story in the Bible after the expulsion from paradise is about a guy killing his brother with a rock. The gun is just a tool. Ban it, somehow get rid of them from every hand, and we'll still be killing each other over trivial nonsense and greed and lust.
> 
> It's not a problem with the tool, but the hand behind the tool. It's just easier to pretend it's the tool's fault when something goes pear-shaped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not an original example nor does it take into account that a gun can and is used at a distance; a knife, rock, Garrote wire, etc., or the feet or fists need to be up close and personal, putting the killer at risk of injury or death.
Click to expand...


Arrows, spears, clubs such as baseball bats etc do not.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free.  Why are some Persons of religion being _illegal_ to the laws of a god?



Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect.  I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free.  Why are some Persons of religion being _illegal_ to the laws of a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect.  I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.
Click to expand...

simply because moral practice should lead to forms of moral perfection.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit Dick Tracy.  If you read my OP post, the question is how you are going to accomplish that.  An answer you have yet to provide.   You just keep begging the question and assuming gun laws work, they don't
> 
> Yes, I am a criminal who wants more armed citizens to shoot me when I commit a crime.  You really are this stupid, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
Click to expand...

No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.
> 
> I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.
> 
> I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.
> 
> Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no you didn't.  You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a three year old.  Let's agree, you're too dumb to get it, and I'm sick of responding to a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate:  My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........
Click to expand...


That's his plan in a nutshell


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
Click to expand...


_Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrycatcher....why do we need to license gun owners....why do we need to register guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.
> 
> I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.
> 
> I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.
> 
> Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no you didn't.  You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a three year old.  Let's agree, you're too dumb to get it, and I'm sick of responding to a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate:  My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his plan in a nutshell
Click to expand...


No, that's a Straw Man fallacy as well as a lie.  What I get it is this:

Cowards feel the need to take a gun to the grocery store, to their kids little league game & piano recital - it's a scary world out their and one can never be too careful; a gun in their hand is a security blanket which makes cowards and paranoids feel safe and the Walter Mitty's life fantasy of becoming a hero.


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I suggest you goggle logical fallacies, calling me stupid when you regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of logical fallacies is absurd and malicious]
> 
> Your repeated logical fallacy is asking a loaded question over and over; something I've explained in detail a half a dozen times.  Yet you continue to pursue a fallacious line of discourse, suggesting you're not only ridiculous, but a mendacious asshole too.  You and M14-shooter need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...


First of all, you understand the difference between these statements, no?

WryCatcher - Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?

Ernie S - What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times

Second, you don't have a right to do what you want on other people's property, so you have a right to be armed when you are on your own or in public.  You don't have a right on other people's property, and government can restrict guns on government property for government use.   In other words, they can restrict guns for example in government buildings like courts, but they cannot restrict guns on streets or in parks


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in detail why I think a state license issued to gun owner might mitigate some gun violence - that you keep asking me to explain why I believe what I do is childish.
> 
> I've never brought up gun registration except in one thread; wherein I expressed my opinion that all guns ought to be insured, and thus registered with the owners insurance company.
> 
> I also stated in that same thread that the record of guns held by an insurance agency could be shielded from the government.
> 
> Now, please list the source for the 22,000 gun laws you claim exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no you didn't.  You said we need to give people licenses but then nothing you said made sense after that......I pointed out that everything you said that should be done on the breaking of the law by a license holder already happens......without the license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being a three year old.  Let's agree, you're too dumb to get it, and I'm sick of responding to a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate:  My position on licensing gun owners was shown to be pointless and unnecessary and I can't admit it is a dumb idea now......so I will call him names and try not to respond........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's his plan in a nutshell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's a Straw Man fallacy as well as a lie.  What I get it is this:
> 
> Cowards feel the need to take a gun to the grocery store, to their kids little league game & piano recital - it's a scary world out their and one can never be too careful; a gun in their hand is a security blanket which makes cowards and paranoids feel safe and the Walter Mitty's life fantasy of becoming a hero.
Click to expand...


I see, cowards defend themselves.  Real Americans try to hide long enough for the cops to get there, then when they don't, they draw a line around you and inform your next of kin


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
Click to expand...


Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
Click to expand...

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._

It really is that simple, except to the right.


----------



## danielpalos

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.


dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
Click to expand...


Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
Click to expand...


Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?


----------



## NYcarbineer

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



How about we use the same plan that most conservatives support for stopping illegal immigration?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
Click to expand...

I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.  

What part of these two statements do you not understand?

Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## NYcarbineer

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
Click to expand...


Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?
Click to expand...

dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.

Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.


----------



## danielpalos

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.
> 
> What part of these two statements do you not understand?
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...


What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.
> 
> Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.
Click to expand...


What post did you address my OP question?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment
Click to expand...


Right, militias of the people, I don't get what you think you are arguing.  What do you think a militia of the people is exactly since you're saying it doesn't apply to all the people?


----------



## kaz

Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited


----------



## paulitician

Law Enforcement gets paid to keep guns away from criminals. It doesn't get paid to attack law abiding Gun Owners. Law Enforcement just isn't doing its job. All Citizens are in favor of going after the criminals. 

So how does a 15yr old in Chicago get a 9mm pistol? That's on Law Enforcement. It's not on good law abiding Citizens who own guns. Time for Law Enforcement to be held accountable. Time for it to do the job.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.
> 
> What part of these two statements do you not understand?
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?
Click to expand...


Here it is again for your ease and convenience:  *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.
> 
> Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What post did you address my OP question?
Click to expand...

the first post i made in your thread.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.
> 
> What part of these two statements do you not understand?
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience:  *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...


Again, my question is simple, and you're a simpleton.  It's in your native language.

Militias are the people, so when you keep repeating that quote, who are you referring to who is not protected by the second amendment?  Who can't have a gun?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.
> 
> Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What post did you address my OP question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the first post i made in your thread.
Click to expand...


There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited


The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## paulitician

Many Politicians and Law Enforcement are taking the lazy way out when it comes to the gun issue. It's much easier for them to attack law abiding Gun Owners. They should be focused on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. Anything other than that is just plain laziness and incompetence.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...


What is your native language?  It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation.  Is it Canadian?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Many Politicians and Law Enforcement are taking the lazy way out when it comes to the gun issue. It's much easier for them to attack law abiding Gun Owners. They should be focused on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. Anything other than that, is just laziness and incompetence.



It gets them off the hook.  It's easier to just write gun laws and pretend they are doing something than actually do something.  Then when people die because they are prevented from defending themselves, they just demand more gun laws.  Like the scum bucket Obama does every time he uses a death to demand more laws preventing people from defending themselves


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not ambiguous simply because you don't understand our supreme law of the land.
> 
> What part of these two statements do you not understand?
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that militias ARE the people do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here it is again for your ease and convenience:  *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, my question is simple, and you're a simpleton.  It's in your native language.
> 
> Militias are the people, so when you keep repeating that quote, who are you referring to who is not protected by the second amendment?  Who can't have a gun?
Click to expand...

Only simpletons don't understand my concise explanation.  *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; 
_
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_

Only those entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

danielpalos said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
Click to expand...


What does this even mean?


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.
> 
> Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What post did you address my OP question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the first post i made in your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
Click to expand...


Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?  



danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Only simpletons don't understand my concise explanation.  *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*;
> _
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Only those entitled to the character of a "well regulated militia" have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.



Only simpletons don't understand my concise question.  Name them.  WHO is not protected by the second amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your native language?  It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation.  Is it Canadian?
Click to expand...

No, it is merely a reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view.  It must be a qualifier since their is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Politicians and Law Enforcement are taking the lazy way out when it comes to the gun issue. It's much easier for them to attack law abiding Gun Owners. They should be focused on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. Anything other than that, is just laziness and incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets them off the hook.  It's easier to just write gun laws and pretend they are doing something than actually do something.  Then when people die because they are prevented from defending themselves, they just demand more gun laws.  Like the scum bucket Obama does every time he uses a death to demand more laws preventing people from defending themselves
Click to expand...


It's easier for them. Keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away, is a very difficult challenge. So just blame the legal Gun Owners for everything. They're just covering their asses.

How does a 15yr old in Chicago get a 9mm pistol? Law Enforcement needs to focus on answering that question. It's not a law abiding Gun Owner's fault that a 15yr old was allowed to obtain a 9mm pistol. That's all on Law Enforcement.


----------



## kaz

Soggy in NOLA said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their plan is to make sure that law abiding citizens don't have guns...  'cause that's how smart they are.
> 
> 
> 
> dude, only gun lovers who can't convince their _own_ elected representatives that they are Responsible with their guns, say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does this even mean?
Click to expand...


He's Canadian, it's always hard to tell what he's talking about


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your native language?  It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation.  Is it Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is merely a reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view.  It must be a qualifier since their is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
Click to expand...


Seriously, you can't read this sentence?   You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what is that supposed to mean?  Gun laws are only followed by honest citizens, you are only restricting honest citizen gun ownership.  Did you read my OP post?  What if you address it?
> 
> 
> 
> dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.
> 
> Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What post did you address my OP question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the first post i made in your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dudette, if that doesn't mean any Thing to you, then don't worry about it since i am not quoting any law.  Anyway, I usually do answer the OP in my first post.
> 
> Can you rephrase the question so I can cover any point you feel i haven't addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What post did you address my OP question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the first post i made in your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not.  Name them.  What about that is unclear to you?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your native language?  It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation.  Is it Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is merely a reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view.  It must be a qualifier since their is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, you can't read this sentence?   You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?
Click to expand...

It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What post did you address my OP question?
> 
> 
> 
> the first post i made in your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not.  Name them.  What about that is unclear to you?
Click to expand...

Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the first post i made in your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not.  Name them.  What about that is unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.
Click to expand...


That's the point, militias are of the people, so no one is not connected to a militia.  Government does not define militias, the people do


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your native language?  It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation.  Is it Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is merely a reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view.  It must be a qualifier since their is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, you can't read this sentence?   You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
Click to expand...


You are functionally illiterate, it is very clear


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first part is a "qualifier" as the Intent and Purpose of the second clause in our Second Article of Amendment: *Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"*; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your native language?  It's sure not English. The first part in English is not a qualifier, it's an explanation.  Is it Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is merely a reading comprehension issue on the part of those of your point of view.  It must be a qualifier since their is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, you can't read this sentence?   You don't understand that it's an explanation for the right?
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> What about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not clear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are functionally illiterate, it is very clear
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

Thus, It must be a qualifier since there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not.  Name them.  What about that is unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point, militias are of the people, so no one is not connected to a militia.  Government does not define militias, the people do
Click to expand...

Yes, only well regulated militias are specifically enumerated as necessary.  Our Founding Father were Never ambiguous with the Most Excellent job they did at the convention with our supreme law of the land; it is only their Posterity on the Right that keeps slacking.


----------



## CowboyTed

I love the idiot right on this issue... No one is talking about taking guns away from responsible owners.

This is a issue about irresponsible owners and people who are designated towards violence.

The right controllers need a bad man with a gun so all the good ones buy more guns... Idiots...

There is an arms race between the bad man and the good man...

And this is all before we ask, not all bad men started off being bad men...

So a some gun control is needed or you are through wilful neglect arming criminals/mentally insane.

And if that doesn't help you. Here is what your main guy said:
*“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.” 
--Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. 



“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989. 



“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets. 



“With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.”

--Ronald Reagan, speech at George Washington University in a on March 29, 1991. 



“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a March 29, 1991 New York Times op-ed in support of the Brady Bill. 



“I think maybe there could be some restrictions that there had to be a certain amount of training taken.”

--Ronald Reagan, in a press conference in Toronto on June 21, 1988, suggesting that prospective gun owners should have to receive training before purchasing a firearm. 


“Well, I think there has to be some (gun) control.”

--Ronald Reagan, during a question-and-answer session with high-school students on November 14, 1988. *


----------



## danielpalos

The right doesn't have a clue or a Cause.  Rights in private property including the class called Arms, are secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## paulitician

The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing. 

Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.


----------



## danielpalos

Then, convince your own elected representatives y'all are not just flakes with your Arms and require nanny-State laws for your own good.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited



If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?

*"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."

Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, a vote decided by Scalia IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  

In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM and officiated SSM ceremonies,  Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.

Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.



Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...

Subject to very few limitations.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
Click to expand...


That's speculation on your part. But regardless, Law Enforcement gets paid to make sure the 15yr old doesn't get the firearm. It isn't paid to target law abiding Gun Owners.

It's time to really focus on keeping the guns from criminals and taking them away. Legal Gun Owners go through the legal process to acquire their firearms. They do the right thing. Time to stop targeting them. Too much valuable time and resources are being spent on that.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
Click to expand...

*Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
Click to expand...

Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are almost 3,600 posts in this thread, when did you join?  You do like to hide, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is my plan.  Don't like it, don't vote for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not.  Name them.  What about that is unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point, militias are of the people, so no one is not connected to a militia.  Government does not define militias, the people do
Click to expand...

This is why daniaeldoofus is on ignore


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about begging the question.  Here is your first post in the thread, it has the same ambiguous statement I keep questioning now.   Who is not protected by the second amendment since militias are the people?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no begging the question.  Only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not ask who is covered by the second amendment, I asked who is not.  Name them.  What about that is unclear to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons not specifically connected with militia service well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point, militias are of the people, so no one is not connected to a militia.  Government does not define militias, the people do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why daniaeldoofus is on ignore
Click to expand...

Because there is no Appeal to Ignorance of the first clause of any law?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
Click to expand...



So when the guy breaks into a home....and steals the gun..that is on the gun owner...you are a fucking moron.....when a gun store is broken into, when they use sledgehammers to pound their way through an exterior wall to get to the guns...that is on the gun store.....you are a fucking moron....

We can already arrest felons caught with guns....like the father of the 7 year old here in chicago....over 40 arrests, caught in a weapons possession violation...he was out the next day.....


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
Click to expand...



Sadly he isn't kidding....someone breaks into your home...and takes your stuff...and you are to blame.......they also think women deserved to be raped because their skirt was too short.....


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...



Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....


----------



## danielpalos

I believe one way to keep Arms from criminals of the People is to turn them into well regulated militia of the People through Judicial forms of discretion.


----------



## Ernie S.

I used a gun to prevent an assault last night. It won't make the papers or crime statistics, but the guy rushing me noticed, I'll tell you THAT.


----------



## danielpalos

The pen or the word is mightier than the sword or the fist.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Then, convince your own elected representatives y'all are not just flakes with your Arms and require nanny-State laws for your own good.



Gun laws are not for our own good, they are for criminals own good


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, a vote decided by Scalia IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.
> 
> In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM and officiated SSM ceremonies,  Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
Click to expand...


Militias are the people, they are for defense.  And they need guns to make defense effective.  You trust government, not the people, so you are warping it.  The founding fathers were saying the right of guns is for people to protect themselves.  Which is clearly what we are arguing as well.  Government is not there to protect you, and it's not there to stop you from protecting yourself.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
Click to expand...


True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
Click to expand...


I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, convince your own elected representatives y'all are not just flakes with your Arms and require nanny-State laws for your own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws are not for our own good, they are for criminals own good
Click to expand...

Gun control laws are meant for the good of gun lovers without any clue or any Cause  and who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, a vote decided by Scalia IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.
> 
> In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM and officiated SSM ceremonies,  Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are the people, they are for defense.  And they need guns to make defense effective.  You trust government, not the people, so you are warping it.  The founding fathers were saying the right of guns is for people to protect themselves.  Which is clearly what we are arguing as well.  Government is not there to protect you, and it's not there to stop you from protecting yourself.
Click to expand...


It is the security needs of a free State that are addressed by our Second Amendment not the People as Individuals..


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
Click to expand...

Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, convince your own elected representatives y'all are not just flakes with your Arms and require nanny-State laws for your own good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws are not for our own good, they are for criminals own good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun control laws are meant for the good of gun lovers without any clue or any Cause  and who are considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.
Click to expand...


What do you think a militia is exactly?  How can a person be unconnected with a militia when militias are the people?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
Click to expand...


I don't know, why don't you ask one?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, a vote decided by Scalia IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.
> 
> In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM and officiated SSM ceremonies,  Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are the people, they are for defense.  And they need guns to make defense effective.  You trust government, not the people, so you are warping it.  The founding fathers were saying the right of guns is for people to protect themselves.  Which is clearly what we are arguing as well.  Government is not there to protect you, and it's not there to stop you from protecting yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the security needs of a free State that are addressed by our Second Amendment not the People as Individuals..
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
Click to expand...


Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.

BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So when the guy breaks into a home....and steals the gun..that is on the gun owner...you are a fucking moron.....when a gun store is broken into, when they use sledgehammers to pound their way through an exterior wall to get to the guns...that is on the gun store.....you are a fucking moron....
> 
> We can already arrest felons caught with guns....like the father of the 7 year old here in chicago....over 40 arrests, caught in a weapons possession violation...he was out the next day.....
Click to expand...


LOL - *you* should never call anyone a moron.


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
Click to expand...

There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause.  It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So when the guy breaks into a home....and steals the gun..that is on the gun owner...you are a fucking moron.....when a gun store is broken into, when they use sledgehammers to pound their way through an exterior wall to get to the guns...that is on the gun store.....you are a fucking moron....
> 
> We can already arrest felons caught with guns....like the father of the 7 year old here in chicago....over 40 arrests, caught in a weapons possession violation...he was out the next day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL - *you* should never call anyone a moron.
Click to expand...

And YOU should never complain about not having an honest, open debate.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
Click to expand...

Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
Click to expand...


The National Guard?  So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns?  Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns?  You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.

You are stoned, even for a Canadian


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause.  It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.
Click to expand...


Hey, here's an idea.  If you want to argue with the right, argue with someone on the right


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written.  At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
Click to expand...


What does that last line even mean?  How is protecting yourself from a criminal "punitive?"


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
Click to expand...


That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.

I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.  

You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation. 

I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines. 

It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.  

Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.

So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> the second amendment is not a right but a privilege





That's why it's in the Bill of Privileges?  Free speech, protection from illegal search and seizure, the right to a jury trial, those are all privileges too?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation
Click to expand...


You know what Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy yard, Aurora, Columbine and others showed us?  If you are barredby government from having a gun when you are being shot at, you don't have a gun...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.


Same for _National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius _(ACA individual mandate)
Same for _King V Burwell _ (ACA subsidies)
Same for  _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (same sex marriage)
Your point...?


> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.


This is a lie; you cannot cite any post were I have said any such thing, and you know it.


> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics


Never mind he fact that you cannot present a sound argument against my positions, instead you support extreme position that can only be justified by arguments based on emotions, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


> ...and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege,..


This is, of course, a lie.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written.  At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
Click to expand...


See my post above and read Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
Click to expand...









I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.  

Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> Read the sentence, the right is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The first part is an explanation, it is not a qualifier.  The right is not limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The National Guard?  So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns?  Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns?  You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
> 
> You are stoned, even for a Canadian
Click to expand...


Nothing but diversion?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause.  It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, here's an idea.  If you want to argue with the right, argue with someone on the right
Click to expand...

Hey, here is an idea.  If you don't want to acquire a possess a clue and a Cause; why waste the Peoples' time.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written.  At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
Click to expand...

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311.


----------



## M14 Shooter

westwall said:


> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written.  At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See my post above and read Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16.
Click to expand...


Rights can be taken away with due process, for all the bloviating you do on the Constitution, you didn't know that?

As for Section 8, so again, you think they were so terrified that government would take away their own right to have guns that they put in the ... Bill of Rights ... that government can have guns as an individual right?  We have an individual right to have government have guns?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the intent of the Second was that all of the people have the absolute right to be armed, why is the initial phrase included ("A well regulated Militia") when a militia is  described in Art. I, Sec. 8 and clause 15 and 16?
> 
> *"Textualism* is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law."
> 
> Textualism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> And yet to explain or rationalize his decision in Heller, Scalia needed pages to define each phrase of the Second by parsing them to justify his vote, decided IMO before the matter was heard before The Court.  In fact, with all the noise surrounding the justices who ruled on SSM, Scalia should have recused himself on several matters, including Heller, long ago.
> 
> Anyone with the ability to comprehend the written word understands that the Militia as described in Art. I, sec. 8 - specifically clause16 - contradicts Scalia's argument.  Since we and he can not expect every person to be fit and able to function as a member of the Militia; one must therefore admit the officers appointed to train the militia would have the authority to wash out those incapable - physically or mentally -  from the Militia.  Anyone, therefore, not trained according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (has Congress ever done so?) may have their right to owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun infringed by the States or the People (10th Amendment).
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The National Guard?  So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns?  Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns?  You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
> 
> You are stoned, even for a Canadian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra?  It doesn't even make sense here.  I am asking you who the militia is.  You came back with a link saying it's the national guard.  The National Guard is government, Holmes.  How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns?  Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns?  Why would government do that?  

So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does

Government:  We are banning ourselves from having guns

The Founding Fathers:  Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns

Government:  Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns

When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns?  Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause.  It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, here's an idea.  If you want to argue with the right, argue with someone on the right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, here is an idea.  If you don't want to acquire a possess a clue and a Cause; why waste the Peoples' time.
Click to expand...


Canadians are very strange.  Can you translate this post into English for me?

My question was why do you keep asking me about conservatives?  I don't give a shit what they think, so why don't you take it up with them?


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra?  It doesn't even make sense here


He doesn't know what it means -- you're wasting your time.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written.  At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311.
Click to expand...


And again, why were the Founding Fathers worried that government would take it's own guns away?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't or it would have been un-wisely written, thusly: _"A well regulated Militia, being un-necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_  If, that was the true Intent and Purpose of our Second Article of Amendment regarding the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The National Guard?  So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns?  Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns?  You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
> 
> You are stoned, even for a Canadian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra?  It doesn't even make sense here.  I am asking you who the militia is.  You came back with a link saying it's the national guard.  The National Guard is government, Holmes.  How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns?  Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns?  Why would government do that?
> 
> So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does
> 
> Government:  We are banning ourselves from having guns
> 
> The Founding Fathers:  Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns
> 
> Government:  Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns
> 
> When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns?  Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land claims otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what the militia was when the Constitution was written.  At what point did they decide it meant government has the right to have guns rather than the people do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Appeal to Ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, why were the Founding Fathers worried that government would take it's own guns away?
Click to expand...

They weren't since they included what was necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that last line even mean?  How is protecting yourself from a criminal "punitive?"
Click to expand...


The word is Putative and means "commonly thought or supposed", so the sentence reads gun lovers suppose (or in common think) that having a gun protects them from criminals.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

My plan.

Execute all criminals. 

Or,

Give criminals guns when they're released. Make it legal for them to murder other criminals. Problem solves itself.  (apologies to Greg Bear for ripping off the idea from "Eon")


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
Click to expand...


Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.

Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,

_"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_

for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
Click to expand...







It's pretty basic English.  Small wonder you can't seem to understand it, you are a State worker after all.  No real education required which explains your sad interpretation of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty basic English.  Small wonder you can't seem to understand it, you are a State worker after all.  No real education required which explains your sad interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


Let me help:

In your paragraph the order of the words is not grammatically correct, and can not be understood.  

Your wrote this:

_"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.

That's clear!  And you wrote this:_

_"You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo"_

This isn't clear, what does it have to do with proving the Second is a right and not a privilege?  One doesn't need a license to exercise the right of free speech, or the right to attend the church where one chooses to worship.

And here:

"a felon LOSES the right to own firearms, etc"


Agrees with my point that the Second is not sacrosanct and the right or privilege can be taken away.


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but why can't you tell us who is and isn't a militia?  My answer is simple, we all are.  It is up to the people to define militias and up to the people to regulate them, it's not a power of government to do that.  In fact the point of it being in the Bill of Rights is to tell government that regulating guns is not a power it possesses
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The National Guard?  So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns?  Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns?  You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
> 
> You are stoned, even for a Canadian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra?  It doesn't even make sense here.  I am asking you who the militia is.  You came back with a link saying it's the national guard.  The National Guard is government, Holmes.  How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns?  Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns?  Why would government do that?
> 
> So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does
> 
> Government:  We are banning ourselves from having guns
> 
> The Founding Fathers:  Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns
> 
> Government:  Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns
> 
> When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns?  Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...



Did you actually graduate from the government school you went to because the education wing of the democrat party didn't do a very good job of teaching you how to read.....


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of 10USC311.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National Guard?  So you think the second amendment protects government's right to have guns?  Seriously, you think that in the bill of rights, the document to protect personal liberties, they were so worried that government may not have guns that they decided to throw in the right of government to have guns?  You think the second amendment prevents government from taking away their own guns.
> 
> You are stoned, even for a Canadian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that there is no appeal to ignorance some sort of Canadian mantra?  It doesn't even make sense here.  I am asking you who the militia is.  You came back with a link saying it's the national guard.  The National Guard is government, Holmes.  How does it make sense that in the Bill of Rights, which protects individual rights, they said government can have guns?  Why would the founding fathers even be worried that the government would decide it can't have guns?  Why would government do that?
> 
> So this is what you think the 2nd amendment does
> 
> Government:  We are banning ourselves from having guns
> 
> The Founding Fathers:  Oh no you're not, you can't do that, it's in the bill of rights that government can have guns
> 
> Government:  Oh crap, OK then, we'll keep our guns
> 
> When has government ever wanted to get rid of their own guns?  Why do you suppose the Founding Fathers were worried government would want to do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion? There is no appeal to ignorance of the definition of the militia of the United States.  Only well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you actually graduate from the government school you went to because the education wing of the democrat party didn't do a very good job of teaching you how to read.....
Click to expand...

What makes you say that when you are the who is resorting to fallacy?


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subject to very few limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
Click to expand...

Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also no appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment as the legislative intent and purpose for the second clause that follows the first clause.  It really really is that simple, except to the disingenuous and frivolous, Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, here's an idea.  If you want to argue with the right, argue with someone on the right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, here is an idea.  If you don't want to acquire a possess a clue and a Cause; why waste the Peoples' time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canadians are very strange.  Can you translate this post into English for me?
> 
> My question was why do you keep asking me about conservatives?  I don't give a shit what they think, so why don't you take it up with them?
Click to expand...


----------



## paulitician

Just focus on attacking the criminals who have guns. Stop focusing on attacking law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms the legal right way. Politicians and Law Enforcement need to stop being lazy and incompetent. They're paid to go after the criminals, not law abiding Citizens. Just get the job done. Period, end of story.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.


Same for _National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius _(ACA individual mandate)
Same for _King V Burwell _ (ACA subsidies)
Same for  _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (same sex marriage)
Your point...?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
Click to expand...


Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.

Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
Click to expand...


Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed citizens.........the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plan should be to focus on keeping guns away from criminals and taking them away. It's time for Politicians and Law Enforcement to stop blaming Law Abiding Gun Owners for their own laziness and incompetence. If a 15yr old in Chicago obtains a 9mm pistol, that's on Law Enforcement. It's not on legal Gun Owners who do the right thing.
> 
> Fact is, Law Enforcement just isn't getting the job done. It gets paid to go after criminals. It doesn't get paid to go after law abiding Citizens. Time to change the focus and get serious about keeping guns away from criminals. Time to leave legal Gun Owners alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
Click to expand...

I own a bar and had a roid raged ass that I had asked to leave, rush me while reaching for something behind his back. He stopped short when my Taurus appeared 3 feet from his chest.
Police were called and the guy reached back again as he was ordered to the ground. I admire the restraint of the officer who held that second it took to see no weapon produced.
It took 3 cops at least 60 seconds to get the guy cuffed.
As we talked about it while filling out the police report, I told the cop that had nearly killed a man, "I'm just glad I didn't have to shoot him."
Cop shook his head and said, "Me too."

So yeah, there's another example of a firearm stopping a violent felony that will never make the statistics because I have no desire kill anyone.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ernie S. said:


> I own a bar and had a roid raged ass that I had asked to leave, rush me while reaching for something behind his back. He stopped short when my Taurus appeared 3 feet from his chest.
> Police were called and the guy reached back again as he was ordered to the ground. I admire the restraint of the officer who held that second it took to see no weapon produced.
> It took 3 cops at least 60 seconds to get the guy cuffed.
> As we talked about it while filling out the police report, I told the cop that had nearly killed a man, "I'm just glad I didn't have to shoot him."
> Cop shook his head and said, "Me too."
> 
> So yeah, there's another example of a firearm stopping a violent felony that will never make the statistics because I have no desire kill anyone.


Some know-nothing anti-gun loon will tell you that since this guy had no weapon, you would have gone to jail for shooting him.


----------



## Ernie S.

Truth is, I probably would have spent the night in the very box he is in right now, but released with no charges in the morning.


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how they could have been clearer than "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But apparently it is to liberals and Canadians
> 
> 
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every gun in the hands of that 15 year old (implied racism, but I digress) was once legally sold.  Therefore the original owner was not a responsible gun owner and was remiss in allowing someone to steal the gun, or in selling the gun to someone who was irresponsible too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
Click to expand...


Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.  

See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.


----------



## Ernie S.

The difference is that, if we consider USMB a microcosm of US society, most NRA members fear nothing and are prepared to act in defense of themselves and their property, virtually all  gays are Liberals and most Liberals are anti law enforcement.

But, apparently it is easy it is to post sans evidence. You do it daily.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Truth is, I probably would have spent the night in the very box he is in right now, but released with no charges in the morning.



By not shooting you used reasonable force.  Keep in mind, most shooters claim they feared for their life, and without evidence such a claim usually falls on deaf ears.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> The difference is that, if we consider USMB a microcosm of US society, most NRA members fear nothing and are prepared to act in defense of themselves and their property, virtually all  gays are Liberals and most Liberals are anti law enforcement.
> 
> But, apparently it is easy it is to post sans evidence. You do it daily.



LOL  I'm glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth.  My post was sarcastic (duh, I suppose I needed to have posted "sarcasm" for dolts like you.  Now, maybe your post above is sarcasm too.  For some reason I suspect it was not, and you really take yourself seriously.

You also seem incapable of differentiating something as a fact from an opinion.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
Click to expand...


Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.


----------



## Idadunno

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.


When private sales are taking place, there is never a cop around to enforce gun control laws! 
(sarcasm alert for the sarcastically impaired)


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
Click to expand...


I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.


----------



## Idadunno

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.


UK has bad issues with baseball bat gangs. They beat people to death, coma, brain damage, or cripple. I'd rather be shot. 
Pregnant woman attacked by gang while she was GIVING BIRTH in Basildon Essex Daily Mail Online
Gang of thugs armed with baseball bats cause mass panic on commuter train after smashing windows in terrifying attack Daily Mail Online
BBC NEWS UK Full list of teen killings
 Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
Click to expand...


You don't make sense. You're a walking contradiction. Figure things out and then get back to us.


----------



## danielpalos

One liberal plan is to improve our aqueducts and our roads through Judicial activism via any Judicial curiosity we can engender (just to see if it may work, with sufficient Judicial discretion) regarding gun lovers who may have to "splain" themselves before the Judicature, regarding any breaches of the _domestic Tranquility_ and _security_ of our free State while in the possession of Arms.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
Click to expand...

Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
Click to expand...

Nah.
You'd run away.
Just like you do from honest and open debates.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?
Click to expand...


Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.


----------



## Ernie S.

I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.



Denial.  It's a mental disorder!


paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.
Click to expand...


That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> You'd run away.
> Just like you do from honest and open debates.
Click to expand...


There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> You'd run away.
> Just like you do from honest and open debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.
Click to expand...

^^^
You and I both know that this is a lie.
Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> You'd run away.
> Just like you do from honest and open debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
Click to expand...


It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged.  You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial.  It's a mental disorder!
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.
Click to expand...

You want sagacious? Try posting something intellectually challenging or in some way worthy of the effort.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah.
> You'd run away.
> Just like you do from honest and open debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
Disagree?
There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.


> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.


^^^
Projection


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial.  It's a mental disorder!
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want sagacious? Try posting something intellectually challenging or in some way worthy of the effort.
Click to expand...


I have, often; the response from your kind is always an idiot-gram and / or an ad hominem - usually both.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.
> You'd run away.
> Just like you do from honest and open debates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Projection
Click to expand...


^^^
Denial


----------



## 2aguy

Idadunno said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> UK has bad issues with baseball bat gangs. They beat people to death, coma, brain damage, or cripple. I'd rather be shot.
> Pregnant woman attacked by gang while she was GIVING BIRTH in Basildon Essex Daily Mail Online
> Gang of thugs armed with baseball bats cause mass panic on commuter train after smashing windows in terrifying attack Daily Mail Online
> BBC NEWS UK Full list of teen killings
> Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind
Click to expand...



Guns are in fact the equalizer....they allow the weak, the small, women, the injured, the handicapped, and senior citizens defend themselves,against younger, stronger, more aggressive armed and unarmed attackers who attack as individuals or in groups.....it is police policy in Britain to warn the citizens of Britain not to resist their attackers..to submit quietly....

I also remember an article where the government did not want people calling for help because they didn't want bystanders getting involved by fighting the criminal....I am not kidding......

so the gun grabbers who say...if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have the violence levels we have today......and that is a crock of shit.....


For most of human civilization we didn't have guns...and the strong used swords, axes, spears, and arrows to murder and enslave the weak........

Guns gave the weak a chance to survive and defeat those attackers...


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> Idadunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> UK has bad issues with baseball bat gangs. They beat people to death, coma, brain damage, or cripple. I'd rather be shot.
> Pregnant woman attacked by gang while she was GIVING BIRTH in Basildon Essex Daily Mail Online
> Gang of thugs armed with baseball bats cause mass panic on commuter train after smashing windows in terrifying attack Daily Mail Online
> BBC NEWS UK Full list of teen killings
> Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are in fact the equalizer....they allow the weak, the small, women, the injured, the handicapped, and senior citizens defend themselves,against younger, stronger, more aggressive armed and unarmed attackers who attack as individuals or in groups.....it is police policy in Britain to warn the citizens of Britain not to resist their attackers..to submit quietly....
> 
> I also remember an article where the government did not want people calling for help because they didn't want bystanders getting involved by fighting the criminal....I am not kidding......
> 
> so the gun grabbers who say...if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have the violence levels we have today......and that is a crock of shit.....
> 
> 
> For most of human civilization we didn't have guns...and the strong used swords, axes, spears, and arrows to murder and enslave the weak........
> 
> Guns gave the weak a chance to survive and defeat those attackers...
Click to expand...

I believe County law enforcement may be lax in the custom, habit, and moral of "commandeering" gun lovers without any clue or Cause, and giving them one merely to establish that authority.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't taken rye drinker seriously in years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial.  It's a mental disorder!
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you do sound like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy. So it's highly unlikely you know anything about firearms. Just pointing that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know enough, and I'm pretty sure if you rang my door bell you wouldn't have the balls to call me a pussy - face to face.  Though, on a moments reflection, you might just be stupid enough to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell you what... Why don't you come here and try it with me? Don't worry about the bell. Just walk on in, OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confused dishonest Communist/Progressive. Goes on whining just like a typical Communist/Progressive pussy who knows nothing about firearms. Yet then boasts about he or she owning firearms. Lost credibility. Can't take that poster seriously anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, as you come from the fringe of the fringe, I've never taken you seriously; as someone who has never posted a sagacious comment, I usually skip by your callowness.
Click to expand...


You're confused and dishonest. You're dismissed.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.



I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
Click to expand...


Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Just focus on attacking the criminals who have guns. Stop focusing on attacking law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms the legal right way. Politicians and Law Enforcement need to stop being lazy and incompetent. They're paid to go after the criminals, not law abiding Citizens. Just get the job done. Period, end of story.



It's easier for them to just try to disarm everyone


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do alleged conservatives always appeal to ignorance of the intent and purpose of any law to conserve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, why don't you ask one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Allowing* someone to steal the gun???? Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it the gun is not stored properly, one must assume liability.  If a pool is not secure and a child falls in and dies, the pool owner is liable; if keys are left in a car, and it is stolen and crashed causing injury, the car owner is liable.  Pools, cars and guns can be an attractive nuisance.
> 
> BTW, isn't it putative by gun lovers that having a gun provides one protection from criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected MY ass 24 hours ago, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  Just yesterday I was walking in my back yard, and as always I carry a holstered hand gun and my AR15 whenever I leave my bedroom (after first looking to make sure a commie wasn't hiding under the mattress) when a giant rodent with a bushy trail tossed a peanut at my head from the pear tree in the SE corner of our yard.
> 
> Quick as possible I trained my weapon and got off two rounds.  The first sent the critter to critter hell; I don't know where the second round went since my assailant disappeared in a bloody mess - but I sure was happy not to have been seriously hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Communists/Progressives are pussies. So i seriously doubt you own a firearm. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that, most NRA members are fearful of their own shadow, most conservatives are gay and in the closet, and most Republicans are thieves.
> 
> See how easy it is to post sans evidence.  Fun isn't it, unless one takes themselves seriously.
Click to expand...


Those are your normal fare, I didn't even realize you were kidding until you said you were


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Click to expand...

The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.

In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.
> 
> In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.
Click to expand...


I responded to the point you made regarding private property.

The Bill of Rights regards individual rights.  Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.
> 
> In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the point you made regarding private property.
> 
> The Bill of Rights regards individual rights.  Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards
Click to expand...

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.
> 
> In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the point you made regarding private property.
> 
> The Bill of Rights regards individual rights.  Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.
Click to expand...


So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?"  That just stupid, even for Canadians.  Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey?  You know it's barely past noon


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individual rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.
> 
> In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the point you made regarding private property.
> 
> The Bill of Rights regards individual rights.  Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?"  That just stupid, even for Canadians.  Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey?  You know it's barely past noon
Click to expand...

Nothing but Northern diversions?

_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._


----------



## danielpalos

I would like to take this time and opportunity to nominate Kaz for a position of Ambassador regarding gender relations and happy campers, in Canada.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  The Bill of Rights are powers that are reserved for the people from government.  How can that not be an individual right?
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
Click to expand...


So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement? 

There are two responses to this statement:

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.  
Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.

And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.

Which is the rational position?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Canadians aren't up on the US Constitution.  Actually, the right to property is in the US protected at the Federal level.  From the fifth amendment:  "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
> 
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.
> 
> In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to the point you made regarding private property.
> 
> The Bill of Rights regards individual rights.  Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?"  That just stupid, even for Canadians.  Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey?  You know it's barely past noon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but Northern diversions?
> 
> _No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._
Click to expand...


Right, that's what I said.  Your point is?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?



Yes



Wry Catcher said:


> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.




Yes, unless you have been convicted of a crime with the due process of law.  What about that confuses you?  You are saying jails are unconstitutional?  Clearly that is depriving people of their liberty.  That's stupid



Wry Catcher said:


> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.



Right, unless through a Constitutional process you are convicted of a crime allowing your life, liberty and property to be infringed on.



Wry Catcher said:


> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?



What gun supporters have argued that gun rights can't be restricted for convicted felons?  No idea what you are talking about.  You need to show me that.

You are the only one making the idiotic argument that the right to life, liberty and property cannot be restricted even with the due process of law.  No one else is arguing that, no one


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fifth Amendment is irrelevant since it may not apply to well regulated militias while it must usually apply to civil Persons considered specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated.
> 
> In any Case, if that is the position of some on the Right, why not advance that amendment instead of trying to plead, so specially, regarding our Second Amendment which has a Militia clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to the point you made regarding private property.
> 
> The Bill of Rights regards individual rights.  Last I heard from you on that you were arguing the second amendment gave ... government ... the right to have guns, which is preposterous even by Canadian standards
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures Due Process not rights in property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think removing property rights only with due process of law is "quibbling?"  That just stupid, even for Canadians.  Have you been drinking Canadian Whiskey?  You know it's barely past noon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but Northern diversions?
> 
> _No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, that's what I said.  Your point is?
Click to expand...

Not quite.  You were too busy with Northern diversions.

If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.



Seriously, what is wrong with you?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."

Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law.  That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant.  You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
Click to expand...









The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.

In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, unless you have been convicted of a crime with the due process of law.  What about that confuses you?  You are saying jails are unconstitutional?  Clearly that is depriving people of their liberty.  That's stupid
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, unless through a Constitutional process you are convicted of a crime allowing your life, liberty and property to be infringed on.
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gun supporters have argued that gun rights can't be restricted for convicted felons?  No idea what you are talking about.  You need to show me that.
> 
> You are the only one making the idiotic argument that the right to life, liberty and property cannot be restricted even with the due process of law.  No one else is arguing that, no one
Click to expand...


I suggest you read the comments from some of you gunr pals, many (most) claim the right to own a gun is absolute.  Any and every effort for gun control is met with "shall not be infringed".  No one until now has argued "shall not be infringed unless a judge says so"

The irony of your post is most of the Crazy Right Wing bitch about a judge or justice making law, and here you are stating they can but legislatures cannot.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That opinion was decided by five of the nine members of the supreme Court,  One vote swing and it will change, as it should.
> 
> I support the right to own a gun for self protection in one's home or business.
> 
> You and the rest of the lunatic fringe always comport gun regulation with confiscation.
> 
> I don't believe and don't support the extreme positions taken by you and the other lunatics, those who continue to push for more guns in the hands of more people, more powerful guns and more effective killing machines.
> 
> It's obvious that gun control exists, and the second amendment is not a right but a privilege, since some citizens are deprived of ever owning, possessing or having in their custody and control a gun.  All civilians are subject to arrest for bringing a firearm into most Court Houses, most State Houses where legislators work, police stations and on airplanes.
> 
> Some are denied the privilege because they have been convicted of a Felony or a violent misdemeanor; others because they have been detained in a locked hospital ward after a finding they are (were) a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> So don't continue to pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct, it ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
Click to expand...


So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways.  You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc.
> 
> Add to that the fact that the 2nd resides within the BILL OF RIGHTS, and your argument is shown to be about as stupid as most of your arguments are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
Click to expand...







Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.

The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, unless you have been convicted of a crime with the due process of law.  What about that confuses you?  You are saying jails are unconstitutional?  Clearly that is depriving people of their liberty.  That's stupid
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, unless through a Constitutional process you are convicted of a crime allowing your life, liberty and property to be infringed on.
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What gun supporters have argued that gun rights can't be restricted for convicted felons?  No idea what you are talking about.  You need to show me that.
> 
> You are the only one making the idiotic argument that the right to life, liberty and property cannot be restricted even with the due process of law.  No one else is arguing that, no one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you read the comments from some of you gunr pals, many (most) claim the right to own a gun is absolute.  Any and every effort for gun control is met with "shall not be infringed".  No one until now has argued "shall not be infringed unless a judge says so"
> 
> The irony of your post is most of the Crazy Right Wing bitch about a judge or justice making law, and here you are stating they can but legislatures cannot.
Click to expand...


No, they are not saying that criminals, aka people who have been convicted with the due process of law, can have guns, you are .... full ... of ... shit ...


----------



## kaz

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
Click to expand...


Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher.  He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid


----------



## westwall

kaz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher.  He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid
Click to expand...








He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.

He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you too.  That said, the words in the Second state emphatically that the right cannot be infringed.  Yet they are, even the theme of this thread makes the case to infringe the rights of criminals to own, possess, etc. a gun.
> 
> Now I'm not sure what you meant in the post directly above,
> 
> _"I see lots of Federal agents and some State agents make the claim that the 2nd is a privilege and not a right, this is refuted in many ways. You don't need a license to own a weapon, you don't need a license to own ammo, a felon LOSES the right to own firearms etc."_
> 
> for a more convoluted syntax I'd need to find a post by Stephanie or a schizophrenic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
Click to expand...


But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text.  Yes or no?


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher.  He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.
> 
> He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.
Click to expand...


I do care, which is why I pay attention to others opinions.  Well, not every opinion by every person posting, some you'll have to admit are damn stupid, intrinsically.

In fact I believe in the rule of law, and thus I believe the COTUS is the supreme rule of our land.  I also believe the genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, allowing generations of Americans to argue and debate its meaning within the context of the times and experience.


----------



## Wry Catcher

BTW Kaz, calling people stupid is an admission the author has no ability to provide a rebuttal, it is a classic example of an emotionally charged logical fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, what is wrong with you?
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."
> 
> Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law.  That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant.  You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?
Click to expand...

Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text.  Yes or no?
Click to expand...








The Right of the PEOPLE, once you have violated another persons rights you are no longer "of the PEOPLE".  Understand?


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher.  He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.
> 
> He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do care, which is why I pay attention to others opinions.  Well, not every opinion by every person posting, some you'll have to admit are damn stupid, intrinsically.
> 
> In fact I believe in the rule of law, and thus I believe the COTUS is the supreme rule of our land.  I also believe the genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, allowing generations of Americans to argue and debate its meaning within the context of the times and experience.
Click to expand...





No, you really don't.  You clearly don't care about the COTUS save in how to work around its controls on government.  I find it laughable that you claim to care about it and yet you make broad statements that are the exact opposite of what the document says.

That is very telling.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding, exactly what I told the idiot wry catcher.  He hears what he wants to hear, he's stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not stupid per se, he puts words in other peoples mouths, and lies, and ignores other peoples viewpoints because he isn't smart enough to carry on a legitimate debate and truly doesn't care about the COTUS, or the founding philosophy of this country.
> 
> He's a progressive who desires the government be all powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do care, which is why I pay attention to others opinions.  Well, not every opinion by every person posting, some you'll have to admit are damn stupid, intrinsically.
> 
> In fact I believe in the rule of law, and thus I believe the COTUS is the supreme rule of our land.  I also believe the genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, allowing generations of Americans to argue and debate its meaning within the context of the times and experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really don't.  You clearly don't care about the COTUS save in how to work around its controls on government.  I find it laughable that you claim to care about it and yet you make broad statements that are the exact opposite of what the document says.
> 
> That is very telling.
Click to expand...


LOL, I posted a direct quote, to wit:  "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and you claim I, "make broad statements that are the exact opposite of what the document says."!

You are the one who argues a judge or justice has the authority to make law by taking this absolute right (according to M14 shooter and others) away from someone by fair treatment through the normal judicial system.

Thus ... drum roll please ... the Second Amendment in your own words is NOT Sacrosanct.


----------



## danielpalos

The _People_ is ambiguous since the People are the Militia.


----------



## Wry Catcher

danielpalos said:


> The _People_ is ambiguous since the People are the Militia.



An interesting read:

The Dick Act and Gun Control - The Volokh Conspiracy


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your felon argument is irrelevant.  Your rights can be taken WITH due process of law.  So assuming you mean by felon a convicted felon, you have no argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text.  Yes or no?
Click to expand...


Not be infringed means no restrictions on citizens who haven't had their freedoms limited with the DUE PROCESS  OF LAW.  You're making a clown argument, bro


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, what is wrong with you?
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."
> 
> Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law.  That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant.  You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.
Click to expand...


Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?


----------



## kaz

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Right of the PEOPLE, once you have violated another persons rights you are no longer "of the PEOPLE".  Understand?
Click to expand...


He understands fine, he's being an eight year old


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, what is wrong with you?
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."
> 
> Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law.  That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant.  You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?
Click to expand...

It doesn't; it says it is Only protected by Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _People_ is ambiguous since the People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting read:
> 
> The Dick Act and Gun Control - The Volokh Conspiracy
Click to expand...



Here is the relevant Part:

_The Dick Act gave formal federal recognition—and financial support—to the National Guard, which had begun as a volunteer state-based civic organization after the Civil War. According to the Dick Act, the ‘‘organized militia’’ of the United States is the National Guard, plus Naval Militias maintained by some states. 10 U.S.C. §311(b)(1)._


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, what is wrong with you?
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."
> 
> Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law.  That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant.  You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't; it says it is Only protected by Due Process.
Click to expand...


Are you being an eight year old on purpose or are you actually that much of a simpleton?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to quibble, the Fifth Amendment only secures _Due Process_ not rights in property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, what is wrong with you?
> 
> "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law."
> 
> Your property cannot be deprived without your being convicted of a crime following the due process of law.  That means right to an attorney, right to a trial, right to a warrant.  You seriously don't grasp how that protects your property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, only Due Process is secured by our Fifth Amendment not rights in property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why does it say our property is protected if it doesn't mean that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't; it says it is Only protected by Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being an eight year old on purpose or are you actually that much of a simpleton?
Click to expand...

Are you so full of fallacy that you have nothing but diversion?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah.
> You'd run away.
> Just like you do from honest and open debates.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
Click to expand...

Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.   
Keep up the good work.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed,


Did you pass your American Government class?
Due process can remove peoples' rights - says so right in the bill of rights.
The state cannot infringe on a right that someone does not have.


----------



## Bonzi

People that kill are nuts. 
People that are nuts will find a way to kill if they really want to.
Guns or not. 

Just another case of the Government/Media distracting us with nonsense and telling us what to care about...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, by due process of law, the right of some people can be infringed, am I correct in making this statement?
> 
> There are two responses to this statement:
> 
> The Second Amendment is sacrosanct
> The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct.
> Since due process is the operate word in your post, one must conclude the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed.
> 
> And yet some of the Second's supporters claim it is sacrosanct, and any effort to regulate who owns or possesses a gun is a violation of a sacred right.
> 
> Which is the rational position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not be infringed means no restrictions on citizens who haven't had their freedoms limited with the DUE PROCESS  OF LAW.  You're making a clown argument, bro
Click to expand...


It's not my argument, sis.  

*Textualism* is a theory of statutory interpretation that holds that a statute's original meaning as evidenced in its text should govern how judges interpret the statute, as opposed to alternative methods of statutory interpretation such as inquiring into historical sources in attempt to discover the intent of the legislative body that approved the statute.[1]

Textualism is consistent with the Plain Meaning Rule, which says that interpreters of statutes ought to interpret what a statute says according to its "plain meaning."

"Textualism" can also refer to a set of practical techniques used by some noted jurists to nail down the meaning of a statute through close consideration of its text.[2]

Associate Justice of the United States Antonin Scalia is considered to be a textualist and an originalist.

Scalia criticizes federal judges whose intent is to disregard the text of the Constitution or statutes and to adopt what he called “the attitude of the common-law judge, the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” Scalia condemns this trend as many judges have a tendency to treat the Constitution as “Living Constitution." Scalia has always urged judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in which the letter of the law according to Scalia "is guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time".[4]

Link to above:

Textualism - Ballotpedia


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> Idadunno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> UK has bad issues with baseball bat gangs. They beat people to death, coma, brain damage, or cripple. I'd rather be shot.
> Pregnant woman attacked by gang while she was GIVING BIRTH in Basildon Essex Daily Mail Online
> Gang of thugs armed with baseball bats cause mass panic on commuter train after smashing windows in terrifying attack Daily Mail Online
> BBC NEWS UK Full list of teen killings
> Statistics Prove More Guns Less Crime Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are in fact the equalizer....they allow the weak, the small, women, the injured, the handicapped, and senior citizens defend themselves,against younger, stronger, more aggressive armed and unarmed attackers who attack as individuals or in groups.....it is police policy in Britain to warn the citizens of Britain not to resist their attackers..to submit quietly....
> 
> I also remember an article where the government did not want people calling for help because they didn't want bystanders getting involved by fighting the criminal....I am not kidding......
> 
> so the gun grabbers who say...if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have the violence levels we have today......and that is a crock of shit.....
> 
> 
> For most of human civilization we didn't have guns...and the strong used swords, axes, spears, and arrows to murder and enslave the weak........
> 
> Guns gave the weak a chance to survive and defeat those attackers...
Click to expand...

So is guile.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing honest about you, and you've proven to be a blatherskite and an ersatz debater.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...


People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.

The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.

Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rational position is no person may be denied firearms who has not committed a felony crime, or been properly judged to be a mentally deranged and dangerous individual.  In the first case the felon has shown a complete disregard for the rights of his fellow citizens so the removal of his RIGHTS are appropriate.
> 
> In the second case anyone who has DEMONSTRATED severe mental health issues, that are fully documented and properly diagnosed, should likewise be denied the RIGHT to firearms.  They are inherently dangerous.  Note, it's the PERSON who is dangerous, not the firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you too agree, "shall not be infringed" isn't regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said is it.  No, I stated very clearly that anyone who has violated OTHER peoples rights should expect theirs to be revoked.  The 2nd is purely for the defense of the PEOPLE against an overbearing government.  We, as a PEOPLE, have come together in a social contract and set up a system where the government can not, and may not, abrogate rights without just cause and extensive Due Process.
> 
> The Founders made it very difficult for a citizen to* lose* their rights.  There was a reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the argument is, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Your argument, or opinion, is adding meaning not in the text.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not be infringed means no restrictions on citizens who haven't had their freedoms limited with the DUE PROCESS  OF LAW.  You're making a clown argument, bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my argument, sis.
> 
> *Textualism* is a theory of statutory interpretation that holds that a statute's original meaning as evidenced in its text should govern how judges interpret the statute, as opposed to alternative methods of statutory interpretation such as inquiring into historical sources in attempt to discover the intent of the legislative body that approved the statute.[1]
> 
> Textualism is consistent with the Plain Meaning Rule, which says that interpreters of statutes ought to interpret what a statute says according to its "plain meaning."
> 
> "Textualism" can also refer to a set of practical techniques used by some noted jurists to nail down the meaning of a statute through close consideration of its text.[2]
> 
> Associate Justice of the United States Antonin Scalia is considered to be a textualist and an originalist.
> 
> Scalia criticizes federal judges whose intent is to disregard the text of the Constitution or statutes and to adopt what he called “the attitude of the common-law judge, the mind-set that asks, ‘What is the most desirable resolution of this case, and how can any impediments to the achievement of that result be evaded?’” Scalia condemns this trend as many judges have a tendency to treat the Constitution as “Living Constitution." Scalia has always urged judges instead to adopt a textualist approach where, in which the letter of the law according to Scalia "is guided by the text and not by intentions or ideals external to it, and by the original meaning of the text, not by its evolving meaning over time".[4]
> 
> Link to above:
> 
> Textualism - Ballotpedia
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with the point, kiddie poo.  Due process is in the bill of rights, it's not re-reading the text later.

Unabridged in the case of guns means that citizens who's rights have not been limited through due process of law are not restricted.

It does not mean those who's rights have been restricted can't be restricted.

Why don't you have a clown avatar like all the other idiot liberals making clown arguments?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
> 
> The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
> 
> Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
Click to expand...


The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy.  A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is


----------



## Wry Catcher

Bonzi said:


> People that kill are nuts.
> People that are nuts will find a way to kill if they really want to.
> Guns or not.
> 
> Just another case of the Government/Media distracting us with nonsense and telling us what to care about...



"Nuts" meaning mentally unstable maybe true, but why provide a gun to a mentally unstable person - either unwittingly or with intent to profit?

I'm pretty sure most of us would much rather be confronted by a nut with a weapon other than a gun - one cannot block a magazine of ten or more rounds from 10 feet away, but give the nut a weapon which brings him into striking distance and 1) they may think twice and 2) the intended victim has an opportunity to not only survive but to apply great bodily harm to the assailant.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
> 
> The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
> 
> Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy.  A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
Click to expand...


My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.

Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.

  One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the  right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> ^^^
> Projection
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
> 
> The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
> 
> Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy.  A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
> 
> Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.
> 
> One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the  right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.
Click to expand...


That's classic.  I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this:  "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."

What a retard


----------



## Koheleth

Liberals have no plan other then crying for new gun laws. What they fail to state is that each state has their own gun laws as we'll as the federal govt in place that are written so that unlawful citizens cannot purchase legal guns. The laws are in place for law abiding citizens. Criminals will never abide by such laws. No new law will stop a criminal from using a gun to commit a criminal act. Liberals don't want new laws they want our guns. The 2 amendment was written so that we the American citizens could protect ourselves against tyranny.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
> 
> The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
> 
> Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy.  A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
> 
> Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.
> 
> One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the  right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic.  I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this:  "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
> 
> What a retard
Click to expand...


What goes around, comes around, sis.  You choose to patronize, I'll come back with the same crap.  I'm not your bro;  you may address me as "sir" or Mr. Catcher, you should know your place.

"What a retard"?  A classic example of someone who posts without thinking and in doing so proves one of my points, to wit:  "it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."


----------



## danielpalos

Koheleth said:


> Liberals have no plan other then crying for new gun laws. What they fail to state is that each state has their own gun laws as we'll as the federal govt in place that are written so that unlawful citizens cannot purchase legal guns. The laws are in place for law abiding citizens. Criminals will never abide by such laws. No new law will stop a criminal from using a gun to commit a criminal act. Liberals don't want new laws they want our guns. The 2 amendment was written so that we the American citizens could protect ourselves against tyranny.


The left doesn't make laws, your own elected representatives do.  Why should the left believe that the Persons you elected to an office of public Trust, are trying to "grab your guns" via the law.  

Do your own elected representatives not trust gun lovers with their Arms.  If so, what can gun lovers do to establish confidence in their sincerity, with their own elected representatives?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
> 
> The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
> 
> Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy.  A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
> 
> Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.
> 
> One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the  right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic.  I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this:  "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
> 
> What a retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What goes around, comes around, sis.  You choose to patronize, I'll come back with the same crap.  I'm not your bro;  you may address me as "sir" or Mr. Catcher, you should know your place.
> 
> "What a retard"?  A classic example of someone who posts without thinking and in doing so proves one of my points, to wit:  "it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
Click to expand...


The only one of us both being insulting and whining about insults is you


----------



## Wry Catcher

Koheleth said:


> Liberals have no plan other then crying for new gun laws. What they fail to state is that each state has their own gun laws as we'll as the federal govt in place that are written so that unlawful citizens cannot purchase legal guns. The laws are in place for law abiding citizens. Criminals will never abide by such laws. No new law will stop a criminal from using a gun to commit a criminal act. Liberals don't want new laws they want our guns. The 2 amendment was written so that we the American citizens could protect ourselves against tyranny.



Slippery slope argument + ad hominem + hyperbole + false prescience.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.  The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
> 
> The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
> 
> Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy.  A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
> 
> Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.
> 
> One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the  right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic.  I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this:  "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
> 
> What a retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What goes around, comes around, sis.  You choose to patronize, I'll come back with the same crap.  I'm not your bro;  you may address me as "sir" or Mr. Catcher, you should know your place.
> 
> "What a retard"?  A classic example of someone who posts without thinking and in doing so proves one of my points, to wit:  "it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only one of us both being insulting and whining about insults is you
Click to expand...


What goes around comes around.  I'm not a sissy, sis; you toss one at me I toss it back.  The difference is a counter punch is planned and much more effective than your sunday sucker haymaker, done with your eyes as closed as your mind.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I'm not a sissy, sis; you toss one at me I toss it back



Then you whine about it incessantly, girly man


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> You and I both know that this is a lie.
> Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig.  You know where to find me.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Projection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^
> Denial
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
> People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.
Click to expand...

You and I both know it is impossible for you to soundly support this assertion.


> And DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.


You said that before.
I addressed it.
You refused to address my response.
This means of course, you know you have no point here.

As I said:  Please keep up the good work; you anti-gun loons make my job easy.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> "Nuts" meaning mentally unstable maybe true, but why provide a gun to a mentally unstable person - either unwittingly or with intent to profit?


it is against federal law to knowingly sell a gun to has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;.
Seems like you already have what you want here.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.


The fact that you refuse to engage in an honest and open debate on gun control, however, is clear and plain for everyone to see.
Even you.


----------



## Wry Catcher

There is no HONEST DEBATE with gun nuts.  Anyone who believes gun laws today are adequate is a liar and/or a fool.

This thread is nothing more than a troll asking a loaded question, and gun nuts calling those who attempt to engage them in a rational discussion unflattering names.  No one can devise a scheme to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and previously convicted persons are not the only set of people who should never have a gun in their possession.

That includes the gun nuts above whose anger is palpable and apparently unrestrained.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> There is no HONEST DEBATE with gun nuts.


There is, and  you know it -- all you need to do is return to the one you tucked tail and ran from.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> There is no HONEST DEBATE with gun nuts.  Anyone who believes gun laws today are adequate is a liar and/or a fool.
> 
> This thread is nothing more than a troll asking a loaded question, and gun nuts calling those who attempt to engage them in a rational discussion unflattering names.  No one can devise a scheme to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and previously convicted persons are not the only set of people who should never have a gun in their possession.
> 
> That includes the gun nuts above whose anger is palpable and apparently unrestrained.




It is only honest debate, that is why you guys can't get around our points.  We show how stupid your gun control ideas are, come up with the ones that work, locking up criminals when they are caught using guns, then you guys start talking about sex organs.......


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> People that kill are nuts.
> People that are nuts will find a way to kill if they really want to.
> Guns or not.
> 
> Just another case of the Government/Media distracting us with nonsense and telling us what to care about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nuts" meaning mentally unstable maybe true, but why provide a gun to a mentally unstable person - either unwittingly or with intent to profit?
> 
> I'm pretty sure most of us would much rather be confronted by a nut with a weapon other than a gun - one cannot block a magazine of ten or more rounds from 10 feet away, but give the nut a weapon which brings him into striking distance and 1) they may think twice and 2) the intended victim has an opportunity to not only survive but to apply great bodily harm to the assailant.
Click to expand...



Yeah....I would rather have a pistol of my own.  That pretty much addresses any weapon they might come at you with...considering they will always get guns if they want them.


----------



## Bonzi

Point being... let's address our mental health issues in this country.

It's a shame someone has to die before anything can be done to put someone away....


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bonzi said:


> Point being... let's address our mental health issues in this country.
> It's a shame someone has to die before anything can be done to put someone away....


Yeah -- damn that due process and all.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free.  Why are some Persons of religion being _illegal_ to the laws of a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect.  I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because moral practice should lead to forms of moral perfection.
Click to expand...


When you can show me a person or a group of people from either side of the political spectrum that have achieved perfection, I'll consider your opinion.  Until then, you're just being ridiculous and a partisan hack.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
Click to expand...


No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It never says that the people must be in a militia.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you understand the difference between these statements, no?
> 
> WryCatcher - Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Ernie S - What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times
> 
> Second, you don't have a right to do what you want on other people's property, so you have a right to be armed when you are on your own or in public.  You don't have a right on other people's property, and government can restrict guns on government property for government use.   In other words, they can restrict guns for example in government buildings like courts, but they cannot restrict guns on streets or in parks
Click to expand...


Except force them to make a cake celebrating gay marriage, of course.  ;-)


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
Click to expand...


If it is that simple, why doesn't it say "the right of the *militia* to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment
Click to expand...


Nope


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free.  Why are some Persons of religion being _illegal_ to the laws of a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect.  I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply because moral practice should lead to forms of moral perfection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you can show me a person or a group of people from either side of the political spectrum that have achieved perfection, I'll consider your opinion.  Until then, you're just being ridiculous and a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

I believe they may not be practicing enough.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed as a result.


----------



## Bonzi

Give everyone a gun.  Even playing field.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is that simple, why doesn't it say "the right of the *militia* to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?
Click to expand...

It does since the People are the Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's?  They appear to be the same to me
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; _ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different.  Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope
Click to expand...

Yup


----------



## M14 Shooter

hunarcy said:


> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.
Click to expand...

Who is unconnected with the Militia?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bonzi said:


> Give everyone a gun.  Even playing field.



Ahh, I see. Let the stupid sort itself out (get my drift?)

Hmmm...


----------



## Bonzi

TemplarKormac said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give everyone a gun.  Even playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, I see. Let the stupid sort itself out (get my drift?)
> 
> Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Seems easy enough ... well, not much


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...


And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
Click to expand...

Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
Click to expand...



The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
Click to expand...

They did say so, in the first clause; the Militia is the People.


----------



## Ernie S.

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
Click to expand...

Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
> Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
> I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.
Click to expand...

Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:

_"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
> Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
> I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
Click to expand...



yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms?  I'll await your quote.


----------



## Ernie S.

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
> Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
> I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms?  I'll await your quote.
Click to expand...

He doesn't get the concept of individual rights or responsibility
SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment speaks to an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
In a sense, we can ignore the first clause and read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it is the PEOPLE who have the right to keep and bear arms...totally unconnected to whether they are in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
> Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
> I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms?  I'll await your quote.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment states only well regulated Militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union as a result--simply because, our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, what Part of the People are the Militia do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where you fail to grasp that the right to keep and bear arms is the right of individual people....not the militia.  If it was the right of militia, they would have said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Danny boy can't grasp his ass with both hands. You expect him to grasp the US Constitution?
> Despite extraordinarily simple language gun grabbers still try to make the 2nd about something it isn't.
> I suggest you put his sick ass on ignore like I did. The headache will eventually go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the Right is not bright enough to learn their own propaganda and rhetoric:
> 
> _"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes..that is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.....Where does he say that only the militia may keep and bear arms?  I'll await your quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't get the concept of individual rights or responsibility
> SCOTUS has ruled that the Second Amendment speaks to an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
> In a sense, we can ignore the first clause and read:
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Yes, I don't get the concept since there are no Individual rights with collective terms.  The Militia and the People are both collective terms, not Individual terms.

Here is what Individual terms look like in a Constitution:  
_SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS  
 Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)_


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
> 
> Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns.  Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and  is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
Click to expand...


You have to excuse him, he's Canadian


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Every_ citizen?  At All times?  Are you sure?  And, does that make any sense at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you understand the difference between these statements, no?
> 
> WryCatcher - Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Ernie S - What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times
> 
> Second, you don't have a right to do what you want on other people's property, so you have a right to be armed when you are on your own or in public.  You don't have a right on other people's property, and government can restrict guns on government property for government use.   In other words, they can restrict guns for example in government buildings like courts, but they cannot restrict guns on streets or in parks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except force them to make a cake celebrating gay marriage, of course.  ;-)
Click to expand...


Well yes, then it's OK


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting.  Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
> 
> That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with.  You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed as a result.
Click to expand...


If you understand what you just said, you finally got it, but I'm questioning that.  So just to confirm, do any people not have the right to bear arms?


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understand what you just said, you finally got it, but I'm questioning that.  So just to confirm, do any people not have the right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

He's lying to you .  
He knows it and he doesn't care.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.



Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.


Oh look...   WC is unhappy because he knows he cannot have an open and honest debate on gun control; to fill this void, he finds a need to petulantly lash out at the person who he knows will best him each and every time he tries.
It doesn't matter how much you stomp your feet and how much snot runs from your nose -- you know you cannot debate the issue honestly ans openly.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
Click to expand...



Impossible to estimate.....


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> How stupid are you?
Click to expand...

He chooses to be wrong.
He chooses to believe that The Second Amendment does NOT protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
He chooses to believe that sine Heller was 5-4 it is somehow meaningless while at the same time he chooses to ignore .DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
He knows he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; he knows he is a useful idiot.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understand what you just said, you finally got it, but I'm questioning that.  So just to confirm, do any people not have the right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller which describes which Individuals of the People may be Infringed.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
Click to expand...


Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q.  How stupid are you

A.  At least two standard deviations above your level


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Q.  How stupid are you
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
Click to expand...

Says the guy who posts a link that does nothing to support his position or undermine that of the person he responded to.


----------



## danielpalos

_It also provided federal funds to the National Guard to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments.
_
Arms are socialized not Only in our Constitution but also by the precedent of Congressional public Acts.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Q.  How stupid are you
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who posts a link that does nothing to support his position or undermine that of the person he responded to.
Click to expand...


Will playing with your boyfriends in the woods, do you wear _Tiddie Whitie_s under your camouflage outfit, or camouflage underwear to match.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Q.  How stupid are you
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who posts a link that does nothing to support his position or undermine that of the person he responded to.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will playing with your boyfriends in the woods, do you wear _Tiddie Whitie_s under your camouflage outfit, or camouflage underwear to match.
Click to expand...

Thank you for continuing to help prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Q.  How stupid are you
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who posts a link that does nothing to support his position or undermine that of the person he responded to.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will playing with your boyfriends in the woods, do you wear _Tiddie Whitie_s under your camouflage outfit, or camouflage underwear to match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for continuing to help prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


I simply asked a question.  In any event, when you or one of your boyfriends shoots you in the ass, I hope for your sake your undergarments are clean.


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it says that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and then goes on to say that  "the right of the_* people*_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> It never says that the people must be in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and may not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understand what you just said, you finally got it, but I'm questioning that.  So just to confirm, do any people not have the right to bear arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I understand Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller which describes which Individuals of the People may be Infringed.
Click to expand...


Right, the bill of rights is about government's right to infringe on our rights, makes perfect sense, thanks for that Canadian explanation.  Eh?

So they are really the bill of suggestions?


----------



## Wry Catcher

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
Click to expand...


The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> How stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Q.  How stupid are you
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who posts a link that does nothing to support his position or undermine that of the person he responded to.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Will playing with your boyfriends in the woods, do you wear _Tiddie Whitie_s under your camouflage outfit, or camouflage underwear to match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for continuing to help prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply asked a question.  In any event, when you or one of your boyfriends shoots you in the ass, I hope for your sake your undergarments are clean.
Click to expand...

Thank you for continuing to help prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
Disagree?
There's a link in my sig to that very conversation, the one you tucked tail and ran from.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
Click to expand...


So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link in my sig to that very conversation, the one you tucked tail and ran from.
Click to expand...


The link proves you are a liar, making an allegation is all you've done.  I'm beginning to  believe you're dumb enough to have convinced yourself you're not lying.  That's pitiful.


----------



## Ernie S.

Restricting my right to bear arms, Kaz's or M 14's won't do a damned thing to cut down on gun deaths. It is not the gun that kills, it is the criminal with a gun, knife, poison, an STD or a motor vehicle that kills.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> Disagree?
> There's a link in my sig to that very conversation, the one you tucked tail and ran from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The link proves you are a liar....
Click to expand...

Another lie.
You've lost, you know it and you hate it.
But, that's all on you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ernie S. said:


> Restricting my right to bear arms, Kaz's or M 14's won't do a damned thing to cut down on gun deaths. It is not the gun that kills, it is the criminal with a gun, knife, poison, an STD or a motor vehicle that kills.


^^^^
Far too simple and correct for anti-gun loons to understand.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> Well, I'm not a liberal



Rim shot!

What's the punch line?


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rim shot!
> 
> What's the punch line?
Click to expand...

I'm also not a RW Nutcase.  Look in mirror kaz


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns."  you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rim shot!
> 
> What's the punch line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm also not a RW Nutcase.  Look in mirror kaz
Click to expand...


I'm not an RW at all, so how does that make sense?

you argue for nothing but left wing politics and the Democratic party, so how does that make sense either.

You may want to stop at the gas station and buy a map.  Just a suggestion


----------



## Ernie S.

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rim shot!
> 
> What's the punch line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm also not a RW Nutcase.  Look in mirror kaz
Click to expand...

Why do you call yourself Bendog? Is it because bendoverandkissliberalass was too long?


----------



## bendog

Wry Catcher said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns.  It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons.  Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned."  The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners.  I was more ambivalent.  I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home.  My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone.  But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible. 

But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective.  No one should have a problem with that.

Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational.  And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls."  And, even then, we found a way to prevent that.  Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.  But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.

We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic.  I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rim shot!
> 
> What's the punch line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm also not a RW Nutcase.  Look in mirror kaz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not an RW at all, so how does that make sense?
> 
> you argue for nothing but left wing politics and the Democratic party, so how does that make sense either.
> 
> You may want to stop at the gas station and buy a map.  Just a suggestion
Click to expand...

yes you are, but you are not 100% RW nutter on everything, nor am I liberal on anything, but basically you told me to fck off, so I returned the favor.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
Click to expand...


Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bendog said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns.  It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons.  Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned."  The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners.  I was more ambivalent.  I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home.  My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone.  But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.
> 
> But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective.  No one should have a problem with that.
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational.  And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls."  And, even then, we found a way to prevent that.  Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.  But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.
> 
> We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic.  I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.
Click to expand...


Thanks for a thoughtful post on this important issue.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns."  you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens
Click to expand...


How have I focused on restricting guns for law abiding citizens?  

How is suggesting that the 10th Amendment be applied allowing each state to determine if gun owners or those who want to possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed restricts gun ownership by "law abiding citizens"?

Leaving out the usual Second Amendment default opinion, how is that more restrictive than requiring a person who has voted all of his or her life a special ID?


----------



## bendog

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

That's true.  I do have an issue with the recent decision to not take up the SF law that mandated guns in homes be locked up or carried on the person.  The fed court that upheld it focused on the fact that there are gun lock boxes that can be easily opened if you need to defend your home, and that is true.  But, not all homes have kids, and not all people can afford lock boxes ... while an old used .38 is cheap and pretty effective.  I'd like to have seen how the scotus squared Heller with the SF law.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rim shot!
> 
> What's the punch line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm also not a RW Nutcase.  Look in mirror kaz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you call yourself Bendog? Is it because bendoverandkissliberalass was too long?
Click to expand...


This ^^^ maybe one of Ernie'S most thoughtful posts ever.


----------



## Ernie S.




----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
Click to expand...


I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...

It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.

The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
Click to expand...

The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational



Of course it's rational.  

1)  You OK with having to register with the government,  pay a fee, tell them what you are going to say and get it approved to have freedom of speech?

2)  All they do is say "no" anyway, if you want registration, at least demand criminals who fail be arrested not just told no, so it really is totally pointless the way it works now.

Also, you are begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your position that background checks prevent anyone from buying guns.

And the thread isn't just about background checks, that's just one thing.  Gun laws clearly do only restrict honest citizens, and they particularly prevent people from having guns to protect themselves when they need it.  How many people in the Washingon Navy yard owned guns, guns they were legally prohibited from having when they were being shot and and killed?


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's rational.
> 
> 1)  You OK with having to register with the government,  pay a fee, tell them what you are going to say and get it approved to have freedom of speech?
> 
> 2)  All they do is say "no" anyway, if you want registration, at least demand criminals who fail be arrested not just told no, so it really is totally pointless the way it works now.
> 
> Also, you are begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your position that background checks prevent anyone from buying guns.
> 
> And the thread isn't just about background checks, that's just one thing.  Gun laws clearly do only restrict honest citizens, and they particularly prevent people from having guns to protect themselves when they need it.  How many people in the Washingon Navy yard owned guns, guns they were legally prohibited from having when they were being shot and and killed?
Click to expand...

Gun control laws have a proven track record of failure for 100 years.  Only the terminally stupid can believe otherwise.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rim shot!
> 
> What's the punch line?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm also not a RW Nutcase.  Look in mirror kaz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not an RW at all, so how does that make sense?
> 
> you argue for nothing but left wing politics and the Democratic party, so how does that make sense either.
> 
> You may want to stop at the gas station and buy a map.  Just a suggestion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes you are, but you are not 100% RW nutter on everything, nor am I liberal on anything, but basically you told me to fck off, so I returned the favor.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm against the wars in the middle east and our presence there, want to slash military spending by 1/3 to 1/2 and make it defensively focused.  I'm pro-choice, against the war on drugs and think all drugs should be legal as well as prostitution, gambling, euthanasia and I oppose all gay sex sodomy laws and government marriage for ... heterosexuals.

You know, like all the other right wing nut jobs you know.  You are functionally retarded


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns.  It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons.  Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned."  The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners.  I was more ambivalent.  I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home.  My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone.  But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.
> 
> But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective.  No one should have a problem with that.
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational.  And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls."  And, even then, we found a way to prevent that.  Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.  But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.
> 
> We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic.  I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for a thoughtful post on this important issue.
Click to expand...


Yes, bendog is arguing with non-liberals and being thanked by liberals, he's not liberal you know, LOL.  He is a tool though


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns."  you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have I focused on restricting guns for law abiding citizens?
> 
> How is suggesting that the 10th Amendment be applied allowing each state to determine if gun owners or those who want to possess or have in their custody or control a gun be licensed restricts gun ownership by "law abiding citizens"?
> 
> Leaving out the usual Second Amendment default opinion, how is that more restrictive than requiring a person who has voted all of his or her life a special ID?
Click to expand...


Can freedom of speech be restricted by the 10th amendment?

The 10th amendment says rights that are not Constitutionally protected can be limited, and the 14th says that applies to State laws as well, so how can States restrict Constitutionally protected gun laws?

You really, seriously don't understand the basics of how the Constitution works


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
Click to expand...


Not with the courts doing their job, they wouldn't.  Unfortunately being on the courts has turned into an opportunity for judges to implement their ideologies rather than do their Constitutional roles.  Except in Roberts case, his priority is his career and his legacy, he doesn't give a shit about the law or his country.  I respect the leftist judges more than him


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's rational.
> 
> 1)  You OK with having to register with the government,  pay a fee, tell them what you are going to say and get it approved to have freedom of speech?
> 
> 2)  All they do is say "no" anyway, if you want registration, at least demand criminals who fail be arrested not just told no, so it really is totally pointless the way it works now.
> 
> Also, you are begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your position that background checks prevent anyone from buying guns.
> 
> And the thread isn't just about background checks, that's just one thing.  Gun laws clearly do only restrict honest citizens, and they particularly prevent people from having guns to protect themselves when they need it.  How many people in the Washingon Navy yard owned guns, guns they were legally prohibited from having when they were being shot and and killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun control laws have a proven track record of failure for 100 years.  Only the terminally stupid can believe otherwise.
Click to expand...


I agree they are a failure for their supposed intent.  Their real intent is for government to identify and control threats, and for that it has been staggeringly effective


----------



## frigidweirdo

The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted. 

Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand. 

Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is. 

There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact. 

What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47. 

How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too. 

Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.

In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.

But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.



Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.

One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.

One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
Click to expand...


I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.

To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.

Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.


----------



## idb

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
Click to expand...

If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
Why is crime so high?
Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?


----------



## 2aguy

idb said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
Click to expand...



Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.   

Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.  

We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.

Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.

Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.

You don't get that picture because of the media.

And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.

Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.


----------



## 2aguy

bendog said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns.  It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons.  Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned."  The recent Scotus case on the SF law of securing firearms in the home didn't please many gun owners.  I was more ambivalent.  I don't see why I should have to lock up or carry on my person guns in my home, because I don't have kids at home.  My dog is not likely to accidentally shoot anyone.  But, obviously, some adults with kids are irresponsible.
> 
> But, it's statistically proven that in crime fighting terms, strict and strictly enforced enhanced sentencing for fire arm crimes are effective.  No one should have a problem with that.
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals and the insane are a no brainer, that again all should agree on.   Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational.  And it's based on a paranoia that the "gummit is keeping a list" but of course few seemed concerned when the "gummit was keeping a list of their telephone calls."  And, even then, we found a way to prevent that.  Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.  But if they'd prevent one mass shooting .... imagine the horror of someone shooting every kid in a kindergarten ... or a bible study group.
> 
> We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic.  I'd think this problem is even larger than background checks, but it would be a lot harder to solve.
Click to expand...




> Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.



Sorry, but they do...a false positive prevents law abiding people from getting guns all the time, and they have stats on it....it is much more than you think.   And not one of the mass shooters has been stopped by background checks, many of whom passed background checks and then killed people, or those who couldn't pass background checks, Columbine and Sandy Hook, although I am not aware that he couldn't have passed one, simply stole or bought their guns illegally.

And if Background checks do not prevent career criminals from getting guns......what is the point?



> or a bible study group.



Do you realize that there have been other church shootings?  And that of the church shootings where the church or temple were gun free zones the body count was higher, and where there were armed citizens in the churches the body count was way lower....I posted it, it was like 15 dead in the gun free zones and only 2-3 in the non gun free zones.

But to get back to the background check.....if they won't stop the bad guys from getting guns....then why have them?

Licensing and registration of guns is pointless, uses up police resources and also do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns.....what is the point to those measures?



> Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.  But if they'd prevent one mass shooting



In fact, mass shootings are the crimes that background checks will do the least to prevent, since almost all of the mass shooters either could already pass a background check, or simply steal their guns.  So again...what is the point?

The simplest and most effective gun control......if you catch someone breaking the law with a gun...lock them up....if you catch a felon merely possessing a gun...lock them up.

Now that may seem too easy a solution....but I just posted a thread on Richmond, California...the police knew 17 individuals who were responsible for 70% of the gun crime in a city of 100,000 people.  We had a shooting gallery here in chicago over the Independence day weekend.  A child was killed, the shooters were targeting the kids father, a high ranking gang leader.  He has had over 40 arrests...and was recently arrested on a weapon possession charge....and was released the very next day.

It isn't law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection that are the problem.  We have known, repeat offenders who commit the majority of the gun crime in this country.  Locking them up for a long time would reduce our gun violence.  Meaningless paperwork for law abiding, peaceful citizens isn't going to stop the gun violence.


----------



## 2aguy

idb said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
Click to expand...




The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
Click to expand...



Should not?  You really mean can't.   They still haven't addressed licensing, registration, or magazine limits and how they would stop one crime or mass shooting or why they are even needed.


----------



## idb

2aguy said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
Click to expand...

What rubbish.
No First World country has more mass shootings.


----------



## 2aguy

idb said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
Click to expand...



Why do you exclude places like Mexico...you guys always tell us that gun control will prevent gun violence...and it doesn't.  Europe has been less violent than the U.S.   But keep in mind....the countries of Europe also marched innocent men, women and children to death camps....and if you take that number of people compared to the gun crime rate in the states, there is no comparison...but you guys always dismiss that....and we aren't talking war dead.....we are talking France and the other countries handing over citizens to the nazis for murder.....

and the criminals of Europe can get guns when they want or need them....I have posted links to European law enforcement who describe how easy it is to get fully automatic weapons in Europe....and grenades and rocket propelled grenades.....they just don't use guns as often...it is a cultural difference.

and now that Europe is importing immigrants from cultures that are completely alien to the values and cultures in Europe, and are far more violent....you are going to see a dramatic increase in your violent crime, including gun crime.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
Click to expand...


Is this the part where you still don't grasp that rights can be limited with due process?


----------



## kaz

idb said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
Click to expand...


I see, so another binary liberal argument, we can lock up everyone who's a threat or no one, there is nothing in the middle.  Tell me how you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are again?

So do you give people who come to your house your life savings or do you shoot them?


----------



## kaz

idb said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
Click to expand...


So you want to export blacks and Hispanics?  What do you have in mind?


----------



## idb

kaz said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so another binary liberal argument, we can lock up everyone who's a threat or no one, there is nothing in the middle.  Tell me how you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are again?
> 
> So do you give people who come to your house your life savings or do you shoot them?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
You're arguing against yourself...certainly not against anything I've said.

Explain to me again how having the highest incarceration rate in the world has made you safer?


----------



## idb

kaz said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to export blacks and Hispanics?  What do you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?


----------



## 2aguy

idb said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to export blacks and Hispanics?  What do you have in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
> That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?
Click to expand...



By far they are overrepresented in the 8,454 gun murders that happened in 2013...mass shootings are rare, daily gun violence in democrat cities is, well, daily..........mass shootings are not the problem in this country either, they get a lot of media play but the daily murder rate by guns in democrat controlled cities is largely ignored by the media.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up




It's a choice really. 

Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances. 

What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.

You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.

It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest. 


You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale. 

36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.

You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population. 

London has diversity. 

Compare this to New York. 
36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian. 

There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white. 

You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places. 

London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.

Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant. 

You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison? 

Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?


----------



## 2aguy

idb said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to export blacks and Hispanics?  What do you have in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
> That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?
Click to expand...



okay...here you have a quick find from USA today....hardly definitive but it was quick....900 deaths in 7 years from "mass shootings."  Of course we would have to actually look at the mass shootings since the press usually gets it wrong...but taking this at face value......900 divided by 7......128.5 per year....

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years

gun murder rate in 2013....8,454.

So mass shootings vs. daily shootings by criminals with blacks and other minorities commiiting most of them......


----------



## kaz

idb said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to stop criminals getting guns is to stop guns being in society, or at least heavily restricted.
> 
> Guns are still obtainable in countries which have strict-ish gun laws. This doesn't mean guns are easily available, the price will rise quite a bit the harder it is to get a gun. A gun in the UK might cost three or four times more than the same gun in the US, it all depends of course, supply and demand.
> 
> Guns in one country means guns might be easier to get in a neighboring country, for example, no matter the laws in place. It all depends on how good smugglers are, or how bad border control is.
> 
> There are ways to restrict guns. Sometimes these things work, but if criminals can easily get guns then they'd need to work really well to have even a small impact.
> 
> What might work is making less criminals. The US locks up more people than any other country, except the Seychelles or some random country like that. 707 people in prison per 100,000 people. The next first world country on the list has 249, Israel, a right wing country like the US. Singapore has 233, New Zealand 183, Iceland 47.
> 
> How is it possible a country like Iceland has 47 and the US 707? And yet the US has a far worse crime problem too.
> 
> Locking people up doesn't seem to be solving things.
> 
> In fact the only way to reduce the problem is by reducing the number of criminals by giving them purpose in life. That usually comes by having a job, or beforehand by going through the education system feeling like they're worthy of being there, instead of being told constantly that they're stupid. Also having after school programs, especially in areas where single parents exist and teaching kids how to have a proper relationship so they don't make the same mistakes.
> 
> But, hey, this would just be a dream. The US doesn't care any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so another binary liberal argument, we can lock up everyone who's a threat or no one, there is nothing in the middle.  Tell me how you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are again?
> 
> So do you give people who come to your house your life savings or do you shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you talking about?
> You're arguing against yourself...certainly not against anything I've said.
> 
> Explain to me again how having the highest incarceration rate in the world has made you safer?
Click to expand...


Violent crime rates are down dramatically exactly coinciding with increased incarceration rates.  So are you a self hating American or just an international hate filled elitist snob?  Why the need to be a dick?


----------



## kaz

idb said:


> Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
> That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?



Why do you exaggerate 5,000 times every second?  Do you know how annoying it is to try to have a conversation with someone who makes every point a ridiculous extreme like you do?

No, they drive up the rates.  They do not commit "all...or even most" of crimes, but they do commit a disproportionate number of them.  Hispanics driven more by illegal immigration than long term citizens.  And how do you get "mass shootings?"  What is wrong with you?  Can you have a normal conversation where you come back with normal questions instead of saying the distance from your home to the corner market is 12 million miles?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to export blacks and Hispanics?  What do you have in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
> That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By far they are overrepresented in the 8,454 gun murders that happened in 2013...mass shootings are rare, daily gun violence in democrat cities is, well, daily..........mass shootings are not the problem in this country either, they get a lot of media play but the daily murder rate by guns in democrat controlled cities is largely ignored by the media.
Click to expand...


According to IDB, you can't pick "over represented," sorry, they have to be responsible for every shooting or none of them.  He only talks in absolute extremes


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
Click to expand...


So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If keeping people locked up - and the US does that more enthusiastically than any other country - is the answer, why do so many people feel the need to carry guns for protection?
> Why is crime so high?
> Why is the US such a scary place to be an unarmed person when they have the highest incarceration rate...and the highest capital punishment rate in the Western world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our most violent crime is isolated to inner cities, in small multi block areas.   I recently posted an article about Richmond California, a city of 100,000 people.  They had 17 known repeat criminals who were responsible for 70% of their gun homicides.   We don't have an incarceration problem, we have an incarcerating the right people for a long time problem.  In chicago we had a shooting, 3 guys shot up a park.  Two of the guys had been caught with guns before and sentenced to 3 years, they were pled out and sent to a boot camp for 18 months, got out and shortly shot up the park.
> 
> Also, we have politicians who don't take crime seriously.  In Chicago, the gangs help choose the alderman who run their wards.  These politicians vote to keep the hiring of new police from happening, help intimidate the community, and help the gangs get out of jail.
> 
> We aren't locking up violent people, they get out.  The girl killed in San Francisco...the guy had 7 felony convictions and was out walking free when he killed her.
> 
> Crime in our country is actually going down, a lot.  And at the same time more law abiding Americans are buying and carrying guns..but again, the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  In fact in Detroit, the chief of police told his citizens to get carry permits...and their crime rate is going down.
> 
> Part of our problem is that the inner city shooting galleries get a lot of attention... and are the source of our gun crime.  Go out away from democrat controlled cities and it is pretty peaceful, at about or below the level of violence you see in Europe.
> 
> You don't get that picture because of the media.
> 
> And why do we carry guns when we can....because you never know....there is crime in other parts of the world......but the  people just have to submit...like in Britain where they tell their people that it is illegal to defend themselves if they inflict harm on their attackers...not kidding, I posted about that with the article a while ago.
> 
> Our people like to be prepared.  And when mass shootings happen in Europe and Australia....the body count is much higher than here.  No one is there to stop them, since many times the police are not used to dealing with that level of violence, Norway and France come to mind, and many police forces aren't armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What rubbish.
> No First World country has more mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to export blacks and Hispanics?  What do you have in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Blacks and Hispanics carry out all...or even most of the mass shootings?
> That's interesting...would you like to list the mass shootings by Blacks or Hispanics and then compare them to those by Whites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> okay...here you have a quick find from USA today....hardly definitive but it was quick....900 deaths in 7 years from "mass shootings."  Of course we would have to actually look at the mass shootings since the press usually gets it wrong...but taking this at face value......900 divided by 7......128.5 per year....
> 
> Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years
> 
> gun murder rate in 2013....8,454.
> 
> So mass shootings vs. daily shootings by criminals with blacks and other minorities commiiting most of them......
Click to expand...


So you're saying that none of the mass shootings were committed by a white guy?  They were all done by blacks and Hispanics?

Just helping you out there IDB


----------



## idb

So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.


----------



## idb

Huh?


Sent from my tree hut on my day off.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
Click to expand...




idb said:


> So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?
> 
> 
> Sent from my tree hut on my day off.




It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime.  We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.


----------



## danielpalos

My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.



> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?
> 
> 
> Sent from my tree hut on my day off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime.  We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.
Click to expand...


So you're saying there are no crimes committed in the United States?

Just helping you out there again, IDB.  You are a black and white guy.  So to get to know you a little better, are you a genius or retarded?  Are you wealthy or do you live in poverty?  Do you drive a luxury car or a heap?  Is your house a mansion or a leanto?  Why is it that everything is one ridiculous extreme to you or the other?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
Click to expand...


Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs
Click to expand...


I think you'll find he's a troll and it doesn't matter what he says as long as he can get you to go around in circles.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime.  We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.



And all the other countries are third world. 

Among first world countries the US has a murder rate of more than double, and more than 5 times higher than most first world countries.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
Click to expand...


I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
Click to expand...


the best chance of making change 

real change for the better 

is creating your own opportunity 

it gives one lots of self worth 



-


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.

As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.

But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> the best chance of making change
> 
> real change for the better
> 
> is creating your own opportunity
> 
> it gives one lots of self worth
> 
> 
> 
> -



Probably, but doesn't help here when you're talking about kids from broken families, in areas with poor education and opportunities.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs
Click to expand...

No, what I said was,
My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.

Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:

My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
Click to expand...

There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you'll find he's a troll and it doesn't matter what he says as long as he can get you to go around in circles.
Click to expand...

Only the Right doesn't appreciate, rhyme or reason.


----------



## The Rabbi

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime.  We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all the other countries are third world.
> 
> Among first world countries the US has a murder rate of more than double, and more than 5 times higher than most first world countries.
Click to expand...

If you cut out murders committed in inner cities by young black men our crime rate looks like every other country.


----------



## danielpalos

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
Click to expand...

I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant specifically for gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.


----------



## The Rabbi

danielpalos said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant specifically for gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.
Click to expand...

Your argument runs counter to the Summa Theologicum and therefore invalid.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.
> 
> As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.
> 
> But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.
Click to expand...



No, democrats have gained control of inner cities....they destroy education, business and increase the crime rate....stop voting in democrats and all of those concerns will improve.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have the highest crime rate either.....more than a few countries with extreme gun control laws have higher rates of violent crime and in particular gun crime.  We are the country with the highest gun ownership rate but rank only 90 or lower for violent crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all the other countries are third world.
> 
> Among first world countries the US has a murder rate of more than double, and more than 5 times higher than most first world countries.
Click to expand...



That just doesn't work.  These 3rd world countries have extreme gun control laws....more laws and less access to guns by regular people...and you guys say that this will make them less violent and reduce their gun murder rate...and it just doesn't.  

And again, European culture has a different history than the United States, we were not exposed to the class system of feudalism, or the devestation of the two World Wars.....and we didn't send 12 million innocent men, women and children to death camps.  They store up their killing and let it all out at once.  And as has been pointed out, if you take out democrat inner cities our crime rate is the same or lower than Europe....and don't get to happy, they are importing violent people from muslim countries...their crime rates are going up.....


----------



## danielpalos

The Rabbi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> 
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we merely need a class of Arms meant specifically for gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument runs counter to the Summa Theologicum and therefore invalid.
Click to expand...

I believe it covers the clueless and the Causeless.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
Click to expand...


Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.  

Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.
> 
> As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.
> 
> But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.
Click to expand...


So you have zero idea how you'd do it, you just expect politicians to figure it out and people to not be responsible for themselves.  Yes, that is typically a recipe for success


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.
> 
> Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?
Click to expand...

Have any of these been proven effective?  Recall that a number of mass shootings were committed by people who were prohibited from owning guns to begin with.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I said was,
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.
Click to expand...


Canadian is a very strange language.  In English you keep repeating you are in favor of the war on drugs


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.
> 
> Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?
Click to expand...


Answers my question, no you still don't understand what life, liberty and property can only be restricted with ... due process of law ... means.  What about that is so complicated to you?  I don't get it, it seems pretty simple


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> 
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not argued that the Second A. "can be restricted until it is meaningless"!  I have simply stated gun ownership and possession has been infringed, by law and historical practice, thus the argument that it cannot be is overruled by reality.
> 
> To argue, "almost every restriction should not pass muster' is absurd and an example of gross ignorance!  Even Scalia wrote in Heller that this right has limitations and by implication can be limited by The Congress (or, by an individual state via the 10th A.); restrictions on who can own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, and the type of arms owned by a citizen can and have been restricted.
> 
> Hence, the debate on gun control is not over, and cannot be suppressed by the claims made by Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and others who claim the Second A. is inviolable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no gun control measure that has proven effective.  Ergo restrictions like that are arbitrary and capricious exercises in infringement, and thus should not pass muster under the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under your expansion of the rights under the Second, parolees,offenders off of probation, radicalized Muslims who exercise free speech, persons detained as a danger to themselves and others, those arrested and convicted for making criminal threats, battery, sexually battery and stalking all would be free to buy, own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm, including automatic weapons with 30 round magazines.
> 
> Is that what you believe Rabbi(t)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have any of these been proven effective?  Recall that a number of mass shootings were committed by people who were prohibited from owning guns to begin with.
Click to expand...


And happened in gun free zones


----------



## kaz

idb said:


> So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?
> 
> 
> Sent from my tree hut on my day off.



Again, crime dropped with incarceration rates rising, so your point is?

Also, why did most mass shootings happen in gun free zones?  Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, even the Washington Navy yard, a military property where guns were prohibited by Slick Willy.

Then there's the ridiculous assumption that a complicated problem boils down to only those two variables, neither of which contradicts my statement.

You aren't doing well.  You may want to stay in the treehouse


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I said was,
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canadian is a very strange language.  In English you keep repeating you are in favor of the war on drugs
Click to expand...

No Thing but diversion as that form of fallacy and error in reasoning, Person on the clueless and Causeless, Right?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?
> 
> 
> Sent from my tree hut on my day off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, crime dropped with incarceration rates rising, so your point is?
> 
> Also, why did most mass shootings happen in gun free zones?  Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, even the Washington Navy yard, a military property where guns were prohibited by Slick Willy.
> 
> Then there's the ridiculous assumption that a complicated problem boils down to only those two variables, neither of which contradicts my statement.
> 
> You aren't doing well.  You may want to stay in the treehouse
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain the whole story:

_Do crime reduction efforts — like building more prisons — really pay? 

 A new national study says that states with the biggest jumps in incarceration levels have not shown corresponding drops in crime, compared to states with smaller increases in their population behind bars...  Source: Incarceration Rate Crime Drop Link Disputed - ABC News_


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> No, democrats have gained control of inner cities....they destroy education, business and increase the crime rate....stop voting in democrats and all of those concerns will improve.



A) I don't vote Democrat, B) I don't believe you. Republicans are the same as Democrats. Republicans haven't improved education the same as the Democrats haven't improved education. 

Blame Democrats where it's deserved, but don't ignore blaming Republicans just because you've decided they're "your team" and you'll support them no matter what. 

Education is a mess in the US, and it benefits the rich who send their kids to private education.

Republicans are pushing this stupid education voucher scheme which is just a "if you send your kids to private school, we'll give you money for it", which clearly only benefits rich people.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> That just doesn't work.  These 3rd world countries have extreme gun control laws....more laws and less access to guns by regular people...and you guys say that this will make them less violent and reduce their gun murder rate...and it just doesn't.
> 
> And again, European culture has a different history than the United States, we were not exposed to the class system of feudalism, or the devestation of the two World Wars.....and we didn't send 12 million innocent men, women and children to death camps.  They store up their killing and let it all out at once.  And as has been pointed out, if you take out democrat inner cities our crime rate is the same or lower than Europe....and don't get to happy, they are importing violent people from muslim countries...their crime rates are going up.....




Third world countries are different to first world countries. Many third world countries will have laws in place but not the money to actually put this in place. You look at prisons in third world countries and some of them are literally communities run by the criminals. As long as they stay inside away from the public no one cares. 

Also third world countries have worse education, and depending on the country different situation.

For example, last year I was in southern Africa. South Africa is hell. It's like being in a dangerous US city only worse. Jo'burg is a "get out of here as quickly as you can" place. Even Cape Town is dodgy at the wrong time of day. Guns are there, knives are there. Chances of getting robbed or killed are quite high. 

Then you go to next door neighbor Mozambique and the police rule. They walk around with guns, crime exists but much less so than South Africa. In fact you're always worried about the police getting you, not the criminals, especially in Maputo. Away from the cities, beach areas or whatever and you're fine. 

But these are two countries with two situations, one with much less crime than the other, still high crime, still poverty, still inequality, still problems, but the governments and situations are completely different. South Africa, former British colony which had Apartheid where the whites ruled, then there was major bitterness. In Mozambique the Portuguese ruled but when independence happened the whites got the hell out of there and this caused other problems, then there was civil war. Even when I was there it was impossible to travel through the center of the country, unless you went in military convoy. 

You have so many factors that make the difference in these poor countries, but there still remain constants which mean you cannot compare high crime rates and so on with first world countries and third world countries. Situations are too different, so many things to talk about, so much history that you don't get a sense of the US's crime rate when comparing. 

You do when you compare with other first world countries. Mostly Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Even comparing with Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore is a little strange just because of the culture in these countries which means you get less crime as a rule anyway.

 So, you said more laws and less access to guns makes crime lower. Again, third world countries. Many laws aren't enforced, do they have less guns? Again, depends on the country. In SA there are probably the same amount of guns as in the US. 
Places which had civil wars will probably have high numbers of guns in their society. Any country close to these countries may also have high levels of guns.

I wouldn't advise, but just pointing out that you haven't even made a comparison with any country, you've not shown there are less guns, or more guns laws, or that they are enforced. You're simply making generalisations based on nothing, which isn't helpful here. 

Yes, European history is different to US history. Your point however was that European history was more pacific. Not so. 

WW2 saw scorched Earth policies in many places. Cities were bombed to hell. The US got hit in Hawaii and maybe some small problems on the East Coast. Doesn't compare. 

Most European countries have had their civil wars. Spain in the 1930s was very brutal. 

No, the US hasn't had a feudal class system. However it has had a class system with slaves at the bottom along with Native Americans and other blacks, with White Anglo Saxon Protestants at the top. Different, but not totally so. The US was a European invention by "Europeans" who were over in the Americas. Still Americans are more European than they are anything else. It's been a branch off, not a total separation. Much of the immigration has been from Europeans, even now the Mexican influx is from a country that was colonied by the Spanish and made more European than it would otherwise have been had it remained Aztec or whatever. 

You're making claims that aren't standing up. 

The problems in the US might be due to cultural differences, but this has nothing to do with Feudalism, or class or any of that. 

A lot of the problems in the US have to do with the system of slavery and the white dominance over other races and the racism that has grown with the US, changed with time from slavery to segregation to what we have now which is unofficial racism in many places, especially the Deep South. But also the resolute determination of such people to stop blacks and others from rising up. Changed from out right racism to more keeping the poor where they are, because the poor are a higher percentage of blacks and hispanics etc. 

There you have problems. And there is where I say the US needs to solve many of these problems. But, the murder rate is still much, MUCH higher than other European countries which have governed themselves with far more sensibility towards poorer people. 

In Europe most countries have had some kind of working man's party. In the US this has been stifled by the rich, made not to happen. And this is causing so many problems.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition's supporters were initially surprised by what did not come to pass during the dry era. When the law went into effect, they expected sales of clothing and household goods to skyrocket. Real estate developers and landlords expected rents to rise as saloons closed and neighborhoods improved. Chewing gum, grape juice, and soft drink companies all expected growth. Theater producers expected new crowds as Americans looked for new ways to entertain themselves without alcohol. None of it came to pass.
> 
> ...
> 
> The effects of Prohibition on law enforcement were also negative. The sums of money being exchanged during the dry era proved a corrupting influence in both the federal Bureau of Prohibition and at the state and local level. Police officers and Prohibition agents alike were frequently tempted by bribes or the lucrative opportunity to go into bootlegging themselves. Many stayed honest, but enough succumbed to the temptation that the stereotype of the corrupt Prohibition agent or local cop undermined public trust in law enforcement for the duration of the era.
> 
> The growth of the illegal liquor trade under Prohibition made criminals of millions of Americans. As the decade progressed, court rooms and jails overflowed, and the legal system failed to keep up. Many defendants in prohibition cases waited over a year to be brought to trial. As the backlog of cases increased, the judicial system turned to the "plea bargain" to clear hundreds of cases at a time, making a it common practice in American jurisprudence for the first time.
> 
> ...
> Source: Prohibition Unintended Consequences PBS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to educate you on one difference between the Canadian and English languages, what you said is actually that you support the war on drugs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you meant you are against the war on drugs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what I said was,
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition of our War on Drugs.
> 
> Here is the simpler version for the Right, if not the South:
> 
> My current plan is to end the Prohibition (of our current regime) of our War on Drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canadian is a very strange language.  In English you keep repeating you are in favor of the war on drugs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Thing but diversion as that form of fallacy and error in reasoning, Person on the clueless and Causeless, Right?
Click to expand...


Does that even mean anything in Canadian?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate, and the world's highest gun ownership , why doesn't it have the world's lowest crime rate?
> 
> 
> Sent from my tree hut on my day off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, crime dropped with incarceration rates rising, so your point is?
> 
> Also, why did most mass shootings happen in gun free zones?  Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, even the Washington Navy yard, a military property where guns were prohibited by Slick Willy.
> 
> Then there's the ridiculous assumption that a complicated problem boils down to only those two variables, neither of which contradicts my statement.
> 
> You aren't doing well.  You may want to stay in the treehouse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't explain the whole story:
> 
> _Do crime reduction efforts — like building more prisons — really pay?_
Click to expand...

_

If you think dramatically lowering violent crime rates constitutes "pay" then yes.  I happen to think dramatically lowering violent crime rates is a big deal, so my answer to that is yes.  Maybe you only care when it happens to you or someone you care about, that's for you to say



danielpalos said:



			A new national study says that states with the biggest jumps in incarceration levels have not shown corresponding drops in crime, compared to states with smaller increases in their population behind bars...  Source: Incarceration Rate Crime Drop Link Disputed - ABC News

Click to expand...

_
I see, so you aren't interested in overall statistics, you want to try to slice and dice your way to more violent crime.  Nice guy you are


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha, it's our job to motivate and engage criminals, not their job. Yeah, that's going to work.
> 
> One key thing you are oblivious to is the incredible diversity in this country.  Comparing us to places like Iceland with far more homogeneous populations is preposterous.
> 
> One thing you are right about is the best way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.
> 
> As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.
> 
> But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have zero idea how you'd do it, you just expect politicians to figure it out and people to not be responsible for themselves.  Yes, that is typically a recipe for success
Click to expand...


Oh, jeez, sounds like all you want to do is win. This is like being in a pathetic high school argument. You're boring me.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, democrats have gained control of inner cities....they destroy education, business and increase the crime rate....stop voting in democrats and all of those concerns will improve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A) I don't vote Democrat, B) I don't believe you. Republicans are the same as Democrats. Republicans haven't improved education the same as the Democrats haven't improved education.
> 
> Blame Democrats where it's deserved, but don't ignore blaming Republicans just because you've decided they're "your team" and you'll support them no matter what.
> 
> Education is a mess in the US, and it benefits the rich who send their kids to private education.
> 
> Republicans are pushing this stupid education voucher scheme which is just a "if you send your kids to private school, we'll give you money for it", which clearly only benefits rich people.
Click to expand...


Republicans and Democrats are the same, you got that right.  Republicans talk about smaller government and spend like Democrats, Democrats talk about avoiding using the military and attack other countries as freely as Republicans.  It's back and forth, no difference.  I left the Republican circa 1990, they have given me zero reason to come back


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a choice really.
> 
> Very few children are born to be criminals. Very few would make it as a criminal under every circumstance possible. Many end up there because of circumstances.
> 
> What's happened in the US is that in certain areas of the country, especially inner city areas, especially minority areas, the family unit has broken down to such a point, not just on an individual basis, but literally over large areas as the norm, that the US is seeing the negative effects of this.
> 
> You look at Europe and see how Europeans have been pro-active and made sure this sort of thing didn't happen. It was going that way, industalisation era Britain and other European countries would have been pretty similar to the US. The attitude in the US, the same attitude you have, one of "everyone can make it in the US" is simply designed to stop something good from happening.
> 
> It's not even criminals you should be motivating and engaging, it's kids. And that's not happening, especially in areas with high single parent families, bad gang problems, poor education. These are the future criminals and the US in BREEDING criminals so it can then have not the 2nd highest prison population but the highest.
> 
> 
> You claim I'm oblivious to diversity. As if diversity has created all these problems. It's not so. London has diversity on a massive scale.
> 
> 36.7% of the population was foreign born in 2011.
> 60% of London is white British, Asian 13%, Black 10%. Newham in London is 29% white, 20% black, 43% Asian. Lewisham is 27% black, 10% Asian, 53% white. Havering is 88% white, 5% black, 5% Asian.
> 
> You have different areas, some have majority Asian, some have a lot of black, though no majority of the population.
> 
> London has diversity.
> 
> Compare this to New York.
> 36% of the city is foreign born. 44.6% white, 25% black, 27% Hispanic,  11% Asian.
> 
> There's a difference. A higher population of non-white people in New York, but diversity exists in both. A look at some areas and you'd see something similar in London and in New York. Some places would be mainly white, others mainly not white.
> 
> You'd find things similar in many British cities, Paris and other places.
> 
> London also had problems with gangs. But the difference is that London became pro-active about it, making sure schools were playing their part, making sure people got behind programs to reduce gun and knife crime, to get behind programs to get rid of gangs or reduce their impact and so on.
> 
> Just looking at the US and saying "ow, nothing can be done" is not only trying to make sure nothing can be done, but also very ignorant.
> 
> You say the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep them locked up. With 707 people out of every 100,000 locked up, costing a ton of money for every person, and still many criminals still have guns and many murders are still happening, how many people are you going to need locked up?
> 
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to spend the money on decent education, decent after school programs, on programs to help people choose their relationships better, on programs to give kids skills so they can work, then maybe you would have more tax paying people and less people sponging off the state stuck in prison?
> 
> Or is that just too hard for the people of the US to be able to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.
> 
> As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.
> 
> But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have zero idea how you'd do it, you just expect politicians to figure it out and people to not be responsible for themselves.  Yes, that is typically a recipe for success
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, jeez, sounds like all you want to do is win. This is like being in a pathetic high school argument. You're boring me.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to "win."  You keep making sweeping statements like you want criminals to have fewer guns and criminals and their children would commit fewer crimes if they had a stake in society, but you've offered zero to do that.  Saying politicans don't give a shit while being true is still on the specific level a flat liner.  You have offered nothing to debate.

I stipulate that I want criminals and their families to have a greater stake in society.  I stipulate that politicians don't give a shit. I stipulate to that I want criminals to have fewer guns.  Now what if you move from there to some actual ideas to actually accomplish any of those?  What do you think?


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're thinking we remove children from homes we think could end up being criminal?  Of all you throw out, specifics are in very short supply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.
> 
> As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.
> 
> But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have zero idea how you'd do it, you just expect politicians to figure it out and people to not be responsible for themselves.  Yes, that is typically a recipe for success
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, jeez, sounds like all you want to do is win. This is like being in a pathetic high school argument. You're boring me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to "win."  You keep making sweeping statements like you want criminals to have fewer guns and criminals and their children would commit fewer crimes if they had a stake in society, but you've offered zero to do that.  Saying politicans don't give a shit while being true is still on the specific level a flat liner.  You have offered nothing to debate.
> 
> I stipulate that I want criminals and their families to have a greater stake in society.  I stipulate that politicians don't give a shit. I stipulate to that I want criminals to have fewer guns.  Now what if you move from there to some actual ideas to actually accomplish any of those?  What do you think?
Click to expand...


I think you're criticising me for no reason other than for your own ego. I think you're criticizing me for having nothing when you have nothing, we call that hypocrisy, and I'm really not in the mood for troll posters right now.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that  hope and opportunity are key to changing lives, I don't get how we accomplish that and you aren't providing any specifics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you're replying to yourself. However I'm not thinking of removing children, so I don't know where you got that idea from, so I'll ignore it.
> 
> As for how to accomplish this, I've suggested this sort of stuff before. It's complex, but the main point is that it requires politicians to actually give a damn, instead of pretending that everyone can make it with hard work sort of thing that completely avoids the issues.
> 
> But the US seems to have reached the point where people are all in it for themselves and are tearing the country apart for self interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have zero idea how you'd do it, you just expect politicians to figure it out and people to not be responsible for themselves.  Yes, that is typically a recipe for success
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, jeez, sounds like all you want to do is win. This is like being in a pathetic high school argument. You're boring me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to "win."  You keep making sweeping statements like you want criminals to have fewer guns and criminals and their children would commit fewer crimes if they had a stake in society, but you've offered zero to do that.  Saying politicans don't give a shit while being true is still on the specific level a flat liner.  You have offered nothing to debate.
> 
> I stipulate that I want criminals and their families to have a greater stake in society.  I stipulate that politicians don't give a shit. I stipulate to that I want criminals to have fewer guns.  Now what if you move from there to some actual ideas to actually accomplish any of those?  What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're criticising me for no reason other than for your own ego. I think you're criticizing me for having nothing when you have nothing, we call that hypocrisy, and I'm really not in the mood for troll posters right now.
Click to expand...


Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.

I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.

So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?

I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?



What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about. 
Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself. 

I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway. 
But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about. 

But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.

First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people. 
Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life. 
Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff. 

Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker. 
Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work). 
Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially. 

The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison. 

I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well. 

Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating. 


The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families. 

People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.


----------



## LoneLaugher

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
Click to expand...


One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.

Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.

Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?

If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.

Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
Click to expand...


I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
Click to expand...


I agree that a better educational system would help.  To say that it alone would solve the problem is a huge stretch.  The problem with politicians is they don't know how to fix anything other than throwing money at it.  Our investment in education is actually huge compared to the Western world, we're getting a terrible return for our money.  Before throwing even more money at it, we need to focus on improving the system we have.

Any ideas on that?


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
Click to expand...



it is also the policies of democrats that increase crime and drive out job makers, making good jobs for the poor harder to get.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is also the policies of democrats that increase crime and drive out job makers, making good jobs for the poor harder to get.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  And the minimum wage is flat out evil to the poor.  Unemployment for inner city teens is 50%, and who needs jobs to improve their work ethnic and lot in lives more?  The idea that businesses pay people what they are not worth is preposterous, it causes exactly that, high unemployment for those who need jobs the most.  And inner city businesses can't afford it at all, and if they try to pay it they have to raise prices on their customers who can afford it the least.  The stats and data are all there in the open and the left doesn't care.  Once again liberal elitists screw other people so they can feel smug and superior


----------



## LoneLaugher

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
Click to expand...


Nope. Try again.


----------



## LoneLaugher

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that a better educational system would help.  To say that it alone would solve the problem is a huge stretch.  The problem with politicians is they don't know how to fix anything other than throwing money at it.  Our investment in education is actually huge compared to the Western world, we're getting a terrible return for our money.  Before throwing even more money at it, we need to focus on improving the system we have.
> 
> Any ideas on that?
Click to expand...


There are ideas in the link I provided. 

Read them.


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
Click to expand...


Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?


----------



## LoneLaugher

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
Click to expand...


Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking you to present actual ideas is trolling?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I started this thread with an actual question. How do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?  High schoolers can get all the pot they want and it is actually illegal.  There are guns everywhere both inside and outside the country.  They are not high tech.  Our borders are open.  Criminals don't obey laws.   You posted in the thread, which is cool, but you just keep saying goals that we all agree on.  The question is how we actually accomplish those though.  All you said is that politicians don't care, but it's their job to solve the problem.  I agree on the first part of that, the second will never happen.
> 
> So let me phrase it this way.  If you were a politician, how would you propose to the rest of the politicians to address the problem?  ... How ... would you engage criminals and their families in the economy so they commit fewer crimes to start with?  ... How ... would you keep guns away from criminals?  Obviously laws don't work, registration doesn't work, so how would you actually do it?
> 
> I would love to just discuss this with you, but I need more than 50K feet of objective, what is wrong with asking you for actual plans and proposals exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that a better educational system would help.  To say that it alone would solve the problem is a huge stretch.  The problem with politicians is they don't know how to fix anything other than throwing money at it.  Our investment in education is actually huge compared to the Western world, we're getting a terrible return for our money.  Before throwing even more money at it, we need to focus on improving the system we have.
> 
> Any ideas on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are ideas in the link I provided.
> 
> Read them.
Click to expand...


First of all, it's hilarious reading a story about education written by someone who doesn't know the difference between ensures and insures, and they did it repeatedly.

I read through that long winded repetitious article at a high level and I didn't see that.  Maybe instead of asking me to read a book you could pull out what you think are the pertinent sections


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is trolling is telling me I have zero ideas. I don't expect you to have read every post on this forum that I have written. However I would expect you to accept that there is a lot of what I have written here, or said in my life, or whatever, that you don't know about.
> Making a silly statement telling me I have zero was not designed to actually get me to say what I believe, but more for that ego massage you wanted to give yourself.
> 
> I do keep saying the politicians are not doing anything, because no matter what ideas you do have, you can't get them through anyway.
> But, again, you're telling me I have ideas, then you're saying I'm criticising the politicians then saying I don't have ideas. I don't get what the feck you're talking about.
> 
> But I'll answer your question and ignore the guff.
> 
> First, get education to be about educating kids, and by kids I mean ALL KIDS, in to being good adults of the country with skills they can use to get themselves jobs.
> This would involve classes which would deal with things like how to choose a partner who is good for you, how to look after a child effectively, how to understand what you're taking if you take drugs, both legal and illegal, how to deal with other people, how to understand other people.
> Also skills would be at the forefront of education. Stuff English Literature and History and all these traditional subjects. All subjects like this would be the platform with which to pass on skills that are essential in modern life.
> Schools would also be split up, somehow, into technical, academic and other which focus kids, especially teenagers, towards a career. So, some kids might go and "major" (so to speak) in construction work. They'd learn how to lay bricks, or do more complex things. Learning other important skills like literacy, math, science would be based around the subject they are doing, rather than just general generic stuff.
> 
> Also, education would target poorer communities which have major problems in society. After school programs would be made effective, keeping kids focused on education and their career ahead, possibly sending them out as 14, 15, 16 year olds etc to get on the job experience, to see what it's like to be a worker.
> Also schools in poorer areas would be targeted to get standards up. Teachers would have to meet certain standards of teaching in order to be able to do their job. (which in turn would mean a change in the way teachers's contracts and unions work).
> Education in prisons would also be a big thing, getting those who have already missed the boat back on track, reducing reoffending rates, making sure ex-criminals who leave prison can get work with the skills that they have learned in prison, even if it is for a lower wage initially.
> 
> The you have the police who would target, in many ways, the poorer areas too. The first is in making sure the police and the communities are working together, rather than feeling they are separate from one another. Then making sure kids are aware of the consequences of prison.
> 
> I'd even be open to some kind of military intervention in education. Kids who are in gangs, who are having major problems, in single parent families where the parent is struggling etc, can have the kid sent off to some kind of boot camp which leads to a potential career in the military if they manage to come out of it doing well.
> 
> Even youth sections of the military in inner cities and poorer areas taking part in the post school educating.
> 
> 
> The goal would be to get adults who can work, adults who can get jobs, adults who have the skills needed, in order for them to have purpose in life. Give kids from inner city areas the same chances as kids from rich families.
> 
> People pay their tax money for a mass education system, not for "their kid to get a good education", and a mass education system should benefit all, not just the few. So things like school vouchers would simply be made illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
Click to expand...


So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.

You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify


----------



## LoneLaugher

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One's zip code is an excellent indicator of one's chances to become a contributing member of society.
> 
> Take a kid out of a poor neighborhood and put him in a middle class neighborhood.....and the chances that this kid becomes a burden on society go down exponentially.
> 
> Since we can't take all poor kids and move them in with rich kids.....we've got to find another way. How about making upward mobility MUCH more easily achieved?
> 
> If there weren't so many insecure people who were born and raised in some of the better zip codes......fooling themselves into believing that they got whet they are through hard work and great choices....and refusing to acknowledge that they were simply fortunate.....we might have already done what is needed.
> 
> Studies Suggest Economic Inequity Is Built Into and Worsened by School Systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
Click to expand...


Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better. 

Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> I agree that a better educational system would help.  To say that it alone would solve the problem is a huge stretch.  The problem with politicians is they don't know how to fix anything other than throwing money at it.  Our investment in education is actually huge compared to the Western world, we're getting a terrible return for our money.  Before throwing even more money at it, we need to focus on improving the system we have.
> 
> Any ideas on that?



Of course, money is thrown at problems without having an idea of how to do this. 

What system do you mean? The political system? I agree, it should be more PR style. I've called for it a few times on here and generally get met with comments like "How am I supposed to know what PR is?" and other such statements from people who haven't been programmed how to think about PR, so instead they ignore it and go off back to their right v. left slap down that they carry out all the time.

The presidency certainly needs to be PR so that ALL people have a say in who the president is, not just those in certain states at certain times. 

Even the concept of Congress is out dated now. Yes, in theory, the people have their representative in the House and the states have their two in the Senate, but really, these people have again been bought and again it's about two parties and nothing else. PR would help to allow more parties, however there needs to be a limit to how much money people can spend.


----------



## kaz

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
Click to expand...


Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them



That actually made sense to you, didn't it?

The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that a better educational system would help.  To say that it alone would solve the problem is a huge stretch.  The problem with politicians is they don't know how to fix anything other than throwing money at it.  Our investment in education is actually huge compared to the Western world, we're getting a terrible return for our money.  Before throwing even more money at it, we need to focus on improving the system we have.
> 
> Any ideas on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, money is thrown at problems without having an idea of how to do this.
> 
> What system do you mean? The political system? I agree, it should be more PR style. I've called for it a few times on here and generally get met with comments like "How am I supposed to know what PR is?" and other such statements from people who haven't been programmed how to think about PR, so instead they ignore it and go off back to their right v. left slap down that they carry out all the time.
> 
> The presidency certainly needs to be PR so that ALL people have a say in who the president is, not just those in certain states at certain times.
> 
> Even the concept of Congress is out dated now. Yes, in theory, the people have their representative in the House and the states have their two in the Senate, but really, these people have again been bought and again it's about two parties and nothing else. PR would help to allow more parties, however there needs to be a limit to how much money people can spend.
Click to expand...


Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail



Yeah, well, just like everything in the US, everyone's out for their slice of the pie. It's like dictators in Africa.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, just like everything in the US, everyone's out for their slice of the pie. It's like dictators in Africa.
Click to expand...


Everyone wanting their best deal is normal.  What is not normal is government interfering and picking favorites.  Government giving unions artificial power is the issue.  "artificial" power meaning non market power


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, just like everything in the US, everyone's out for their slice of the pie. It's like dictators in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wanting their best deal is normal.  What is not normal is government interfering and picking favorites.  Government giving unions artificial power is the issue.  "artificial" power meaning non market power
Click to expand...


Sure. Other countries manage to have teaching unions who are actually in favor of better educational standards. But then again the whole thing seems to fit in perfectly well with the whole "can't do" American political attitude.

Then again we're back to blaming those in charge for being totally incapable of running the country.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made sense to you, didn't it?
> 
> The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now
Click to expand...


I don't think you read what he wrote. 

You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.


----------



## Wildman

*HOW TO KEEP GUNS FROM CRIMINALS

start executing those who use a gun in committing a crime involving murder and/or serious bodily injury as soon as convicted, like the next day !!  *


----------



## danielpalos

Wildman said:


> *HOW TO KEEP GUNS FROM CRIMINALS
> 
> start executing those who use a gun in committing a crime involving murder and/or serious bodily injury as soon as convicted, like the next day !!  *


Should we "force" them to become "illegals" in a third world economy before that "third strike"?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, just like everything in the US, everyone's out for their slice of the pie. It's like dictators in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wanting their best deal is normal.  What is not normal is government interfering and picking favorites.  Government giving unions artificial power is the issue.  "artificial" power meaning non market power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Other countries manage to have teaching unions who are actually in favor of better educational standards. But then again the whole thing seems to fit in perfectly well with the whole "can't do" American political attitude.
> 
> Then again we're back to blaming those in charge for being totally incapable of running the country.
Click to expand...


Not me, I blame them for trying to run the country


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made sense to you, didn't it?
> 
> The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you read what he wrote.
> 
> You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.
Click to expand...


I addressed exactly what he wrote, he traps kids in the crappy schools hoping they will get better.  It's a terrible thing to do to the kids who's parents care


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made sense to you, didn't it?
> 
> The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you read what he wrote.
> 
> You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed exactly what he wrote, he traps kids in the crappy schools hoping they will get better.  It's a terrible thing to do to the kids who's parents care
Click to expand...



"crappy schools" are "crappy" because of the way they're being run. 

What needs to happen is a lot of knowledge exchange. So you get principles who are very good at taking poor schools and turning them around helping other principles who are less knowledgeable about this. 

You give them the resources to succeed with this knowledge too. 

Schools need to get better. A school itself is just a building, what makes a school successful is not necessarily the building but the leadership, the teaching, the ability to get kids on board by being pro-active and make the kids feel like they're succeeding and also to have them succeeding.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, just like everything in the US, everyone's out for their slice of the pie. It's like dictators in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wanting their best deal is normal.  What is not normal is government interfering and picking favorites.  Government giving unions artificial power is the issue.  "artificial" power meaning non market power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Other countries manage to have teaching unions who are actually in favor of better educational standards. But then again the whole thing seems to fit in perfectly well with the whole "can't do" American political attitude.
> 
> Then again we're back to blaming those in charge for being totally incapable of running the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me, I blame them for trying to run the country
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made sense to you, didn't it?
> 
> The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you read what he wrote.
> 
> You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed exactly what he wrote, he traps kids in the crappy schools hoping they will get better.  It's a terrible thing to do to the kids who's parents care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "crappy schools" are "crappy" because of the way they're being run.
> 
> What needs to happen is a lot of knowledge exchange. So you get principles who are very good at taking poor schools and turning them around helping other principles who are less knowledgeable about this.
> 
> You give them the resources to succeed with this knowledge too.
> 
> Schools need to get better. A school itself is just a building, what makes a school successful is not necessarily the building but the leadership, the teaching, the ability to get kids on board by being pro-active and make the kids feel like they're succeeding and also to have them succeeding.
Click to expand...



And then the union steps in to protect bad teachers.....and there is no accountability for spending money, they lose it, steal it or waste it....don't forget those things....and they are the biggest reason you have a problem with education.


----------



## 2aguy

LoneLaugher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Sadly it's your left who block parents of kids in bad neighborhoods from choosing to put their kids in better schools through vouchers and force them to stay in their crappy neighborhood schools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
Click to expand...



No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made sense to you, didn't it?
> 
> The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you read what he wrote.
> 
> You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed exactly what he wrote, he traps kids in the crappy schools hoping they will get better.  It's a terrible thing to do to the kids who's parents care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "crappy schools" are "crappy" because of the way they're being run.
> 
> What needs to happen is a lot of knowledge exchange. So you get principles who are very good at taking poor schools and turning them around helping other principles who are less knowledgeable about this.
> 
> You give them the resources to succeed with this knowledge too.
> 
> Schools need to get better. A school itself is just a building, what makes a school successful is not necessarily the building but the leadership, the teaching, the ability to get kids on board by being pro-active and make the kids feel like they're succeeding and also to have them succeeding.
Click to expand...


I agree.  But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place.   You willing to take on the Democrats on those?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what that has to do with the education system exactly, but the biggest issue are government teacher unions.  They impede all reform.  You need to start with accountability, and they fight it tooth and nail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, just like everything in the US, everyone's out for their slice of the pie. It's like dictators in Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone wanting their best deal is normal.  What is not normal is government interfering and picking favorites.  Government giving unions artificial power is the issue.  "artificial" power meaning non market power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Other countries manage to have teaching unions who are actually in favor of better educational
> standards. But then again the whole thing seems to fit in perfectly well with the whole "can't do" American political attitude.
> 
> Then again we're back to blaming those in charge for being totally incapable of running the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me, I blame them for trying to run the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


Really?  Even re-reading it you didn't get that?

I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives.  And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> I agree.  But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place.   You willing to take on the Democrats on those?



Someone should, otherwise the US is headed for the stinkhole. I'm not so worried about that, every country that rises must fall, and they all fall for similar reasons to this.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Really?  Even re-reading it you didn't get that?
> 
> I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives.  And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that



No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.

You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives. 

However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.

The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons. 

Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....
Click to expand...


Vouchers hand money to rich people who can already afford t pay for private education. Nothing else.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving poor kids into better schools further segregates them
> 
> 
> 
> That actually made sense to you, didn't it?
> 
> The #1 way to improve lots in life is to give people the chance to improve their own lot.  Your no child gets ahead plan is programmed failure from the start, it's what we do now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you read what he wrote.
> 
> You make poor schools now into schools that have teaching that is just as good as good schools now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed exactly what he wrote, he traps kids in the crappy schools hoping they will get better.  It's a terrible thing to do to the kids who's parents care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "crappy schools" are "crappy" because of the way they're being run.
> 
> What needs to happen is a lot of knowledge exchange. So you get principles who are very good at taking poor schools and turning them around helping other principles who are less knowledgeable about this.
> 
> You give them the resources to succeed with this knowledge too.
> 
> Schools need to get better. A school itself is just a building, what makes a school successful is not necessarily the building but the leadership, the teaching, the ability to get kids on board by being pro-active and make the kids feel like they're succeeding and also to have them succeeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And then the union steps in to protect bad teachers.....and there is no accountability for spending money, they lose it, steal it or waste it....don't forget those things....and they are the biggest reason you have a problem with education.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we discussed and agreed on that already. This was a sort of "what if" sort of thing.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place.   You willing to take on the Democrats on those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should, otherwise the US is headed for the stinkhole. I'm not so worried about that, every country that rises must fall, and they all fall for similar reasons to this.
Click to expand...


Yes, you rise through achievement, then the leeches and parasites take over and vote themselves other people's money and act as if they deserve it.  We call them Democrats.  Though Republicans aren't much better.  RKM Brown thinks not giving people other people's money is authoritarian


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Even re-reading it you didn't get that?
> 
> I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives.  And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.
> 
> You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives.
> 
> However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.
> 
> The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.
Click to expand...


You have to give me an example of politicians making anyone's "life better."  Politicians everywhere only care about making their own lives better


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers hand money to rich people who can already afford t pay for private education. Nothing else.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place.   You willing to take on the Democrats on those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should, otherwise the US is headed for the stinkhole. I'm not so worried about that, every country that rises must fall, and they all fall for similar reasons to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you rise through achievement, then the leeches and parasites take over and vote themselves other people's money and act as if they deserve it.  We call them Democrats.  Though Republicans aren't much better.  RKM Brown thinks not giving people other people's money is authoritarian
Click to expand...


The Republicans aren't better in any way at all. 

Part of the problem in the US is the Republicans not spending money on things that need money spending on them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about



Actually I do know what I'm talking about. 

You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?

Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people. 

Greg Palast Investigative Reporter

76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.

This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/

In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good. 

Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.

It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set. 

In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.

Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really? 

Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.

So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Even re-reading it you didn't get that?
> 
> I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives.  And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.
> 
> You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives.
> 
> However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.
> 
> The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to give me an example of politicians making anyone's "life better."  Politicians everywhere only care about making their own lives better
Click to expand...


Okay, I give the examples of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Austria. You know, countries that actually have sensible politicians. 
Norway has so much money saved up in the bank it's incredible. Other Scandinavian countries and Germanic countries put things in place that are for the good of the people. They didn't go to illegal wars in Iraq, they stayed at home and spent that money on improving the environment, improving fuel efficient cars, improving push biking within cities, improving the look of a city center so it is appealing to people. You know, they make life worth living. They give a damn about people.


----------



## blunthead

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> KAZ: I ask people what should we do and they don't have an answer.  You know what we should do to solve a problem?  Nothing!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means.
Click to expand...

Member ClosedCaption is not a thinker.


----------



## blunthead

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do know what I'm talking about.
> 
> You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?
> 
> Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.
> 
> Greg Palast Investigative Reporter
> 
> 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.
> 
> This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/
> 
> In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.
> 
> Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.
> 
> It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.
> 
> In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.
> 
> Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?
> 
> Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.
> 
> So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.
Click to expand...

Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.


----------



## blunthead

velvtacheeze said:


> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.


I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".


----------



## frigidweirdo

blunthead said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do know what I'm talking about.
> 
> You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?
> 
> Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.
> 
> Greg Palast Investigative Reporter
> 
> 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.
> 
> This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/
> 
> In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.
> 
> Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.
> 
> It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.
> 
> In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.
> 
> Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?
> 
> Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.
> 
> So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.
Click to expand...


Wooptiedoo for you. So you don't believe anything that anyone on the left says, so you limit yourself to just right wing stuff you choose to believe. That's your look out, not mine.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...you think Democrats aren't against vouchers?  Don't keep up much, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vouchers are hardly a solution. That's simpleton stuff. That's where you fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support the point that getting kids into better schools is the solution yet you oppose helping or even allowing parents in poor neighborhoods to put their kids in better schools.
> 
> You're right, you are a clown.  Promise me you'll never change the avatar.  It's classic how often people self identify
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummy. Let's make ALL THE SCHOOLS better. Then ALL THE KIDS get to go to good schools. While we are at it....let's make ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS better.
> 
> Vouchers are a weak attempt to further segregate schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...vouchers desegregate schools.....that is why obama cancelled the voucher program that let poor kids to to Sidwell Friends, the school his daughters go to.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vouchers hand money to rich people who can already afford t pay for private education. Nothing else.
Click to expand...



vouchers allow poor kids a chance at a better education...which is why Obama cancelled the D.C. Voucher program...


----------



## 2aguy

blunthead said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
Click to expand...



Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....


----------



## blunthead

frigidweirdo said:


> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do know what I'm talking about.
> 
> You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?
> 
> Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.
> 
> Greg Palast Investigative Reporter
> 
> 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.
> 
> This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/
> 
> In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.
> 
> Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.
> 
> It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.
> 
> In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.
> 
> Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?
> 
> Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.
> 
> So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wooptiedoo for you. So you don't believe anything that anyone on the left says, so you limit yourself to just right wing stuff you choose to believe. That's your look out, not mine.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you, frigidweirdo, are responding to my post or one of the others included here. If so, yes, I've satisfied myself that left-wingers opinions, attitudes, emotions, etc are not to be trusted. I have my reasons which explained I've also learned are wasted on some. I mean, look, left-wingers elected the most dangerous politician in American history _twice_. That alone should be enough evidence that left-wing thinking is way too dangerous. I'm happy to have wooptiedooed you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> vouchers allow poor kids a chance at a better education...which is why Obama cancelled the D.C. Voucher program...



Like I pointed out, generally vouchers TAKE money AWAY from poor kids.

How many poor kids have had a better chance at education because of vouchers?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Even re-reading it you didn't get that?
> 
> I don't want politicians running the country, I want us to run our own lives.  And the country does nothing but benefit when we do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it could have meant a whole host of things. Your point wasn't clear in the slightest.
> 
> You want us to run our lives? That works on a certain level. Ie, people should be able to have the govt not interfere in their lives.
> 
> However there are times when you need something like the govt to make sure things work.
> 
> The biggest problem in the US and other countries is that people go into politics for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Some countries manage to have govts that actually give a damn about the people and make life better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to give me an example of politicians making anyone's "life better."  Politicians everywhere only care about making their own lives better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I give the examples of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, Austria. You know, countries that actually have sensible politicians.
> Norway has so much money saved up in the bank it's incredible. Other Scandinavian countries and Germanic countries put things in place that are for the good of the people. They didn't go to illegal wars in Iraq, they stayed at home and spent that money on improving the environment, improving fuel efficient cars, improving push biking within cities, improving the look of a city center so it is appealing to people. You know, they make life worth living. They give a damn about people.
Click to expand...



None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?  

and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......


----------



## frigidweirdo

blunthead said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do know what I'm talking about.
> 
> You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?
> 
> Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.
> 
> Greg Palast Investigative Reporter
> 
> 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.
> 
> This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/
> 
> In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.
> 
> Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.
> 
> It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.
> 
> In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.
> 
> Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?
> 
> Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.
> 
> So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Greg Palast is a left-wing operative. I don't trust a single thing he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wooptiedoo for you. So you don't believe anything that anyone on the left says, so you limit yourself to just right wing stuff you choose to believe. That's your look out, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't tell if you, frigidweirdo, are responding to my post or one of the others included here.
Click to expand...


You can't tell? Jeez.........


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
Click to expand...


Will you stop trying to pass off stuff you made up as the truth. We've been through this. Criminals don't get guns "as easily" in Europe, I showed you that prices will generally be much higher for criminals in Europe to get guns than guns in the US go for. 

Before your thing was that Europe was more pacific, now you've changed your tune to they're different because govts murder their own people. Either way it still makes no sense at all to how criminals act in the present day.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  Many inner city parents want vouchers to get their kids out of their crappy schools.  You don't know what you are talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I do know what I'm talking about.
> 
> You say "Many inner city parents want vouchers", really? And do they know what this actually means?
> 
> Firstly, school vouchers take money AWAY from inner city schools and poor schools. They give money to rich people.
> 
> Greg Palast Investigative Reporter
> 
> 76% of the money handed out for Arizona’s voucher program has gone to children already in private schools.
> 
> This means that 75% of the money being spent was being diverted from state education, generally for the poorest in society and was being funneled into the pockets of people who could already pay for education, we call these rich people/
> 
> In fact the money that a parent gets from a school voucher program probably isn't enough to actually send a kid to a private school, unless of course the private school charges only that money that the school voucher costs. In which case the private school might not be that good.
> 
> Choice can be had WITHOUT school vouchers. In many countries parents can "choose" which school their child goes to. Of course, not every child can go to the best school. It's simply not feasible. In the UK parents actually apply to schools, and they get in or not based on criteria. Sometimes the criteria is where the child lives. So the closer you are to the school the more chance you have of getting in. But then some kids don't get into good schools even though they "chose" to go to that school.
> 
> It's not hard to simply set up a system where parents apply to the school of their choice and get in based on criteria set.
> 
> In a voucher scheme it could easily lead to good private schools simply raising tuition fees above and beyond the voucher money in order to weed out poorer parents. So, this element of "choice" becomes an element of "how much money are you willing to spend?". That's as much choice as it is of moving to a neighborhood in order to access the better schools.
> 
> Poorer parents might want school vouchers because they think it gives them choice. But does it, really?
> 
> Basically it gives free money to rich people. Then you have those people who are able to access private schools when before they might not have, they'd be upper middle class, then you have those who might consider a private school where the funding is the same as the voucher, and finally those who simply wouldn't be able to do much at all, the private schools wouldn't want them, the good schools would be full already, so the vouchers would simply go to bad schools because there's nothing left. Not only this the bad schools would lose money.
> 
> So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, you haven't proven anything.
Click to expand...



and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%.  vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you stop trying to pass off stuff you made up as the truth. We've been through this. Criminals don't get guns "as easily" in Europe, I showed you that prices will generally be much higher for criminals in Europe to get guns than guns in the US go for.
> 
> Before your thing was that Europe was more pacific, now you've changed your tune to they're different because govts murder their own people. Either way it still makes no sense at all to how criminals act in the present day.
Click to expand...



I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it.  and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But the problem is that LoneLaugher and the left say let's allow teacher unions who are locking the current system in place to continue to do so and trap even the kids of parents trying to do something to help their own children in place.   You willing to take on the Democrats on those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should, otherwise the US is headed for the stinkhole. I'm not so worried about that, every country that rises must fall, and they all fall for similar reasons to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you rise through achievement, then the leeches and parasites take over and vote themselves other people's money and act as if they deserve it.  We call them Democrats.  Though Republicans aren't much better.  RKM Brown thinks not giving people other people's money is authoritarian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans aren't better in any way at all.
> 
> Part of the problem in the US is the Republicans not spending money on things that need money spending on them.
Click to expand...


Like what?  You really don't like coming down from 50K feet with your positions, do you?

A discussion with you is like asking what you want for dinner and you confirm that yes, you do want to have dinner


----------



## blunthead

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you stop trying to pass off stuff you made up as the truth. We've been through this. Criminals don't get guns "as easily" in Europe, I showed you that prices will generally be much higher for criminals in Europe to get guns than guns in the US go for.
> 
> Before your thing was that Europe was more pacific, now you've changed your tune to they're different because govts murder their own people. Either way it still makes no sense at all to how criminals act in the present day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it.  and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...
Click to expand...

I've been ignorant of this. Thanx!


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
Click to expand...


Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you stop trying to pass off stuff you made up as the truth. We've been through this. Criminals don't get guns "as easily" in Europe, I showed you that prices will generally be much higher for criminals in Europe to get guns than guns in the US go for.
> 
> Before your thing was that Europe was more pacific, now you've changed your tune to they're different because govts murder their own people. Either way it still makes no sense at all to how criminals act in the present day.
Click to expand...



Here you go...from Europe on easy access to guns...

This story tracks gun smuggling in Europe.....lots of it....

European Police Face Being Outgunned by Jihadists WIth Assault Rifles



French police believe rifles are on sale in French cities for between €1,000 and €1,500. Earlier this month, Philippe Capon, head of the French police union UNSA, told Bloomberg News, “The French black market for weapons has been inundated with eastern European war artillery and arms.” A French police source told TIME that the weapons from the _Charlie Hebdo_attack came from the Balkans.

That is not the only source of weaponry. Donald says he fears that the continent might be facing a fresh influx of weapons from North Africa in the wake of the Arab Spring revolts. In August, 2011, Libyan rebels looted large quantities of mortars, tank shells and other munitions when Moammar Gaddafi’s regime collapsed. Although most of those weapons are believed to have filtered across North and West Africa, some could also have made their way to Europe.







aanother story on ease terrorists get guns....

Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard but terrorists have little trouble - The Washington Post


There’s a book about 1,000 pages thick,” said Tonni Rigby, one of only two licensed firearms dealers in Copenhagen. “You have to know all of it.”


But if you want an illicit assault rifle, such as the one used by a 22-year-old to rake a Copenhagen cafe with 28 bullets on Saturday, all it takes are a few connections and some cash.

“It’s very easy to get such a weapon,” said Hans Jorgen Bonnichsen, a former operations director for the Danish security service PET. “It’s not only a problem for Denmark. It’s a problem for all of Europe.”


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?
> 
> and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......



None of these countries have to spend on their self defense, supposedly, because they don't go invading countries like Iraq. 

The US doesn't spend most of its military money on self defense. It spends it on being an aggressive war monger. 

In per capita spending, Norway is 6th, Denmark is 14th in the world, Holland 15th, Finland 16th, Sweden 17th,  Germany 20th, Switzerland 21st, Belgium 22nd, Spending is about 1/4 to 1/3 what the US spends. 

Norway only spends less than the US, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 

Oh, another one of your made up theories which, when facts are presented, falls apart so quickly. 

Oh, so your argument is that countries which have had welfare systems in place for a long time, will see (ie, aren't seeing now, because hell, that would require proof, let's pretend the future holds something different) a rise in crime that you can't prove. 

The fact is these countries care about their people. Yes, there are problems with a welfare state that causes problems. However that's better than having a system where inner city gangs are being bred so the country can lock these people up.


----------



## 2aguy

This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....


As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”

So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....

    17


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating
Click to expand...


Is it? Can you prove this in any way? 

Police winning battle against inner city gun crime - Crime - UK - The Independent

Then I guess these reports from the UK of dropping gun crime are just made up stuff then?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?
> 
> and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of these countries have to spend on their self defense, supposedly, because they don't go invading countries like Iraq.
> 
> The US doesn't spend most of its military money on self defense. It spends it on being an aggressive war monger.
> 
> In per capita spending, Norway is 6th, Denmark is 14th in the world, Holland 15th, Finland 16th, Sweden 17th,  Germany 20th, Switzerland 21st, Belgium 22nd, Spending is about 1/4 to 1/3 what the US spends.
> 
> Norway only spends less than the US, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
> 
> Oh, another one of your made up theories which, when facts are presented, falls apart so quickly.
> 
> Oh, so your argument is that countries which have had welfare systems in place for a long time, will see (ie, aren't seeing now, because hell, that would require proof, let's pretend the future holds something different) a rise in crime that you can't prove.
> 
> The fact is these countries care about their people. Yes, there are problems with a welfare state that causes problems. However that's better than having a system where inner city gangs are being bred so the country can lock these people up.
Click to expand...



Yes....tell me that in 10 years....when the inner city gangs in Europe are muslims from violent 3rd world countries....and don't go to Marseille...their criminals use fully automatic rifles......


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? Can you prove this in any way?
> 
> Police winning battle against inner city gun crime - Crime - UK - The Independent
> 
> Then I guess these reports from the UK of dropping gun crime are just made up stuff then?
Click to expand...



They have a major police scandal going on, they are underreporting their violent crime numbers....and they are 2 times as violent as the U.S. after their gun ban.......


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?
> 
> and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of these countries have to spend on their self defense, supposedly, because they don't go invading countries like Iraq.
> 
> The US doesn't spend most of its military money on self defense. It spends it on being an aggressive war monger.
> 
> In per capita spending, Norway is 6th, Denmark is 14th in the world, Holland 15th, Finland 16th, Sweden 17th,  Germany 20th, Switzerland 21st, Belgium 22nd, Spending is about 1/4 to 1/3 what the US spends.
> 
> Norway only spends less than the US, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
> 
> Oh, another one of your made up theories which, when facts are presented, falls apart so quickly.
> 
> Oh, so your argument is that countries which have had welfare systems in place for a long time, will see (ie, aren't seeing now, because hell, that would require proof, let's pretend the future holds something different) a rise in crime that you can't prove.
> 
> The fact is these countries care about their people. Yes, there are problems with a welfare state that causes problems. However that's better than having a system where inner city gangs are being bred so the country can lock these people up.
Click to expand...


LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.

They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.

Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....
> 
> 
> As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”
> 
> So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....
> 
> 17



Oh, so one did. Therefore it's easy for all criminals. Especially criminals who don't have one thousand euros to their name.

I didn't say it wasn't possible to get guns. We've been through this before and you keep coming back with ONE EXAMPLE of someone getting a gun, and making no comparison with how easy it might be in the US to do the same thing.

You say this "very young officer" had "no training or experience", no training or experience with what? For all you know he might just have known people, or something else similar. 

Again, for criminals in europe guns are generally going to cost more. That doesn't mean in every case this is going to be so, but on the whole it will be so. Also, it will be harder to get guns. Doesn't mean it will be impossible, it means it will be HARDER.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?
> 
> and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of these countries have to spend on their self defense, supposedly, because they don't go invading countries like Iraq.
> 
> The US doesn't spend most of its military money on self defense. It spends it on being an aggressive war monger.
> 
> In per capita spending, Norway is 6th, Denmark is 14th in the world, Holland 15th, Finland 16th, Sweden 17th,  Germany 20th, Switzerland 21st, Belgium 22nd, Spending is about 1/4 to 1/3 what the US spends.
> 
> Norway only spends less than the US, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
> 
> Oh, another one of your made up theories which, when facts are presented, falls apart so quickly.
> 
> Oh, so your argument is that countries which have had welfare systems in place for a long time, will see (ie, aren't seeing now, because hell, that would require proof, let's pretend the future holds something different) a rise in crime that you can't prove.
> 
> The fact is these countries care about their people. Yes, there are problems with a welfare state that causes problems. However that's better than having a system where inner city gangs are being bred so the country can lock these people up.
Click to expand...


I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? Can you prove this in any way?
> 
> Police winning battle against inner city gun crime - Crime - UK - The Independent
> 
> Then I guess these reports from the UK of dropping gun crime are just made up stuff then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They have a major police scandal going on, they are underreporting their violent crime numbers....and they are 2 times as violent as the U.S. after their gun ban.......
Click to expand...


And you're making no assumptions that the US, in comparison with Europe, that the US isn't underreporting violent crimes. Jeez. Again, we've been through this and I've shown you the differences between violent crime reporting in the US and Europe and how in Europe rape is a violent crime, and, for example, in the US most rape is simply NOT REPORTED because the US isn't very good at getting rape to stick in court, whereas European countries are more likely to do so so women are more likely to report it.

It's like you conveniently forget everything anyone ever tells you and you go off peddling the same crap you were trying to get away with the time before.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....
> 
> 
> As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”
> 
> So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....
> 
> 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so one did. Therefore it's easy for all criminals. Especially criminals who don't have one thousand euros to their name.
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't possible to get guns. We've been through this before and you keep coming back with ONE EXAMPLE of someone getting a gun, and making no comparison with how easy it might be in the US to do the same thing.
> 
> You say this "very young officer" had "no training or experience", no training or experience with what? For all you know he might just have known people, or something else similar.
> 
> Again, for criminals in europe guns are generally going to cost more. That doesn't mean in every case this is going to be so, but on the whole it will be so. Also, it will be harder to get guns. Doesn't mean it will be impossible, it means it will be HARDER.
Click to expand...



Again....tell the European law enforcement they are wrong and you are right...they said it...not me....did you read the whole article...and it is a big business for criminal gangs over there.....

And Australia has seen a spike in gun crime......I've posted that too......doubt Australian news services too why don't you....


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? Can you prove this in any way?
> 
> Police winning battle against inner city gun crime - Crime - UK - The Independent
> 
> Then I guess these reports from the UK of dropping gun crime are just made up stuff then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They have a major police scandal going on, they are underreporting their violent crime numbers....and they are 2 times as violent as the U.S. after their gun ban.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're making no assumptions that the US, in comparison with Europe, that the US isn't underreporting violent crimes. Jeez. Again, we've been through this and I've shown you the differences between violent crime reporting in the US and Europe and how in Europe rape is a violent crime, and, for example, in the US most rape is simply NOT REPORTED because the US isn't very good at getting rape to stick in court, whereas European countries are more likely to do so so women are more likely to report it.
> 
> It's like you conveniently forget everything anyone ever tells you and you go off peddling the same crap you were trying to get away with the time before.
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?
> 
> and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of these countries have to spend on their self defense, supposedly, because they don't go invading countries like Iraq.
> 
> The US doesn't spend most of its military money on self defense. It spends it on being an aggressive war monger.
> 
> In per capita spending, Norway is 6th, Denmark is 14th in the world, Holland 15th, Finland 16th, Sweden 17th,  Germany 20th, Switzerland 21st, Belgium 22nd, Spending is about 1/4 to 1/3 what the US spends.
> 
> Norway only spends less than the US, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
> 
> Oh, another one of your made up theories which, when facts are presented, falls apart so quickly.
> 
> Oh, so your argument is that countries which have had welfare systems in place for a long time, will see (ie, aren't seeing now, because hell, that would require proof, let's pretend the future holds something different) a rise in crime that you can't prove.
> 
> The fact is these countries care about their people. Yes, there are problems with a welfare state that causes problems. However that's better than having a system where inner city gangs are being bred so the country can lock these people up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
Click to expand...



Europe doesn't guard Asia, they don't keep the sea lanes safe.....


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....
> 
> 
> As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”
> 
> So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....
> 
> 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so one did. Therefore it's easy for all criminals. Especially criminals who don't have one thousand euros to their name.
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't possible to get guns. We've been through this before and you keep coming back with ONE EXAMPLE of someone getting a gun, and making no comparison with how easy it might be in the US to do the same thing.
> 
> You say this "very young officer" had "no training or experience", no training or experience with what? For all you know he might just have known people, or something else similar.
> 
> Again, for criminals in europe guns are generally going to cost more. That doesn't mean in every case this is going to be so, but on the whole it will be so. Also, it will be harder to get guns. Doesn't mean it will be impossible, it means it will be HARDER.
Click to expand...


European countries also don't have open borders like the US does where people can walk across them freely carrying drugs, guns, whatever they want


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? Can you prove this in any way?
> 
> Police winning battle against inner city gun crime - Crime - UK - The Independent
> 
> Then I guess these reports from the UK of dropping gun crime are just made up stuff then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They have a major police scandal going on, they are underreporting their violent crime numbers....and they are 2 times as violent as the U.S. after their gun ban.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're making no assumptions that the US, in comparison with Europe, that the US isn't underreporting violent crimes. Jeez. Again, we've been through this and I've shown you the differences between violent crime reporting in the US and Europe and how in Europe rape is a violent crime, and, for example, in the US most rape is simply NOT REPORTED because the US isn't very good at getting rape to stick in court, whereas European countries are more likely to do so so women are more likely to report it.
> 
> It's like you conveniently forget everything anyone ever tells you and you go off peddling the same crap you were trying to get away with the time before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of those countries have to spend money on their own self defense...they all look to the U.S. To keep the peace...and pay for it....how generous could their welfare states be if they had to all have viable militarized to keep them safe....?  And if their men and women had to enlist in large numbers to keep their countries safe....?
> 
> and I posted an article that pointed out that the glories of these countries. Welfare states are a myth...they are creating welfare dependent a who won't work, and have to import foreign workers to get their jobs done.....and those workers come from violent countries that have cultures hostile to Euopean cultures and values and you will see an surge in violence in the next 10 years or so......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of these countries have to spend on their self defense, supposedly, because they don't go invading countries like Iraq.
> 
> The US doesn't spend most of its military money on self defense. It spends it on being an aggressive war monger.
> 
> In per capita spending, Norway is 6th, Denmark is 14th in the world, Holland 15th, Finland 16th, Sweden 17th,  Germany 20th, Switzerland 21st, Belgium 22nd, Spending is about 1/4 to 1/3 what the US spends.
> 
> Norway only spends less than the US, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
> 
> Oh, another one of your made up theories which, when facts are presented, falls apart so quickly.
> 
> Oh, so your argument is that countries which have had welfare systems in place for a long time, will see (ie, aren't seeing now, because hell, that would require proof, let's pretend the future holds something different) a rise in crime that you can't prove.
> 
> The fact is these countries care about their people. Yes, there are problems with a welfare state that causes problems. However that's better than having a system where inner city gangs are being bred so the country can lock these people up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europe doesn't guard Asia, they don't keep the sea lanes safe.....
Click to expand...


They don't even fully defend themselves


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.



I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year. 

In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blunthead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans have a different criminal culture....their criminals get guns as easily as ours do and seem to prefer fully automatic rifles....but they use them less....of course Europe has a history of their governments murdering their own citizens to the tune of over 12 million people....but we aren't supposed to look at organized government murder in their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite the ignorance of the left, as Europe is becoming more heterogeneous gun violence also keeps escallating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? Can you prove this in any way?
> 
> Police winning battle against inner city gun crime - Crime - UK - The Independent
> 
> Then I guess these reports from the UK of dropping gun crime are just made up stuff then?
Click to expand...


that doesn't contradict what I said


----------



## blunthead

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....
> 
> 
> As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”
> 
> So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....
> 
> 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so one did. Therefore it's easy for all criminals. Especially criminals who don't have one thousand euros to their name.
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't possible to get guns. We've been through this before and you keep coming back with ONE EXAMPLE of someone getting a gun, and making no comparison with how easy it might be in the US to do the same thing.
> 
> You say this "very young officer" had "no training or experience", no training or experience with what? For all you know he might just have known people, or something else similar.
> 
> Again, for criminals in europe guns are generally going to cost more. That doesn't mean in every case this is going to be so, but on the whole it will be so. Also, it will be harder to get guns. Doesn't mean it will be impossible, it means it will be HARDER.
Click to expand...

Anywhere in the world where there are guns it's easy for criminals to get them. Gun control only makes it HARDER for law abiding citizens to get them. This is why statistics show that crime is less where there is less gun control and vice versa. Anyone who can't see this as common sense has no common sense.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year.
> 
> In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.
Click to expand...


Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....
> 
> 
> As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”
> 
> So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....
> 
> 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so one did. Therefore it's easy for all criminals. Especially criminals who don't have one thousand euros to their name.
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't possible to get guns. We've been through this before and you keep coming back with ONE EXAMPLE of someone getting a gun, and making no comparison with how easy it might be in the US to do the same thing.
> 
> You say this "very young officer" had "no training or experience", no training or experience with what? For all you know he might just have known people, or something else similar.
> 
> Again, for criminals in europe guns are generally going to cost more. That doesn't mean in every case this is going to be so, but on the whole it will be so. Also, it will be harder to get guns. Doesn't mean it will be impossible, it means it will be HARDER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European countries also don't have open borders like the US does where people can walk across them freely carrying drugs, guns, whatever they want
Click to expand...


No, Europe doesn't have the Schengen Agreement. It's false, fake. Never happened. I've never walked across the border of various countries without being stopped. Like the Spain/Portugal border, I forgot my passport, didn't matter, no one was there to check it. Or the Austrian/German border, the Austria/Slovakian border, to name a few. Others I've gone over with transport, quite a few actually, Norway/Sweden, France/Belgium, Belgium/Germany/Germany/Holland etc etc etc







Note, this map doesn't exist because you say so. Not because it doesn't actually exist.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year.
> 
> In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has
Click to expand...


Well actually I have followed the Ukraine, and I've been to the Ukraine and I understood the Ukraine BEFORE the whole thing kicked off and I understand why the Ukraine happened and why it wouldn't happen anywhere else. But then, knowing stuff shouldn't get in the way of a bad argument, should it?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how easy it is to get an illegal, fully auto rifle in Europe....
> 
> 
> As Europe struggles to crack down on illegal weapons, some police recruits face a new training exercise: Go buy a Kalashnikov rifle. Donald says that in “a city in Europe,” which he would not name, “very young officers with no training or experience” were recently told to go find an assault weapon on the streets from an illegal arms dealer. “One came back two hours later with an AK-47,” Donald says. “He bought it for €1,000.”
> 
> So please......tell them they are wrong and you are right....
> 
> 17
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so one did. Therefore it's easy for all criminals. Especially criminals who don't have one thousand euros to their name.
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't possible to get guns. We've been through this before and you keep coming back with ONE EXAMPLE of someone getting a gun, and making no comparison with how easy it might be in the US to do the same thing.
> 
> You say this "very young officer" had "no training or experience", no training or experience with what? For all you know he might just have known people, or something else similar.
> 
> Again, for criminals in europe guns are generally going to cost more. That doesn't mean in every case this is going to be so, but on the whole it will be so. Also, it will be harder to get guns. Doesn't mean it will be impossible, it means it will be HARDER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European countries also don't have open borders like the US does where people can walk across them freely carrying drugs, guns, whatever they want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Europe doesn't have the Schengen Agreement. It's false, fake. Never happened. I've never walked across the border of various countries without being stopped. Like the Spain/Portugal border, I forgot my passport, didn't matter, no one was there to check it. Or the Austrian/German border, the Austria/Slovakian border, to name a few. Others I've gone over with transport, quite a few actually, Norway/Sweden, France/Belgium, Belgium/Germany/Germany/Holland etc etc etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note, this map doesn't exist because you say so. Not because it doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...


So you think walking between Germany and France is what I meant when I said they don't have open borders like we do?

Seriously?

Seeriousssssly, that's what you thought I meant.  Again, I'm here now, I'm in the Netherlands

Explain who is Mexico in your clueless response.  Yes, you can walk between developed countries here.  I was talking about the ability for Al Qaeda to fly to Mexico City and cross our border.  I was referring to Columbia and Afghanistan to ship drugs across our borders, that's unbelievable.  I can't believe you actually came back with that


----------



## frigidweirdo

blunthead said:


> Anywhere in the world where there are guns it's easy for criminals to get them. Gun control only makes it HARDER for law abiding citizens to get them. This is why statistics show that crime is less where there is less gun control and vice versa. Anyone who can't see this as common sense has no common sense.



It's still harder for criminals, in general, to get guns in Europe than in the USA.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> So you think walking between Germany and France is what I meant when I said they don't have open borders like we do?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Seeriously, that's what you thought I meant.
> 
> Explain who is Mexico in your clueless response, that's unbelievable.



You don't think having an open border between France and German is actually MORE OPEN than between the US and Mexico? 

I mean, if you write stuff that's kind of vague, what do you think I have to go on? I'm not a fucking mind reader you know.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year.
> 
> In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually I have followed the Ukraine, and I've been to the Ukraine and I understood the Ukraine BEFORE the whole thing kicked off and I understand why the Ukraine happened and why it wouldn't happen anywhere else. But then, knowing stuff shouldn't get in the way of a bad argument, should it?
Click to expand...


Swish.

I'm referring to Putin and the threat he is to his neignbors


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.
> 
> They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.
> 
> Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive



Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it. 

I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.

The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible. 

You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think walking between Germany and France is what I meant when I said they don't have open borders like we do?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Seeriously, that's what you thought I meant.
> 
> Explain who is Mexico in your clueless response, that's unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think having an open border between France and German is actually MORE OPEN than between the US and Mexico?
> 
> I mean, if you write stuff that's kind of vague, what do you think I have to go on? I'm not a fucking mind reader you know.
Click to expand...


Um...OK?  You responded to me literally and completely whiffed on the actual point.  The Schengen agreement is an agreement of developed countries.  Al Qaeda can't fly to any of them with no border security.  Columbian and Afghan drugs can't go to any of them without border security.  Unlike our borders which have no security.  Only the developed countries within the Schengen area can travel, they have security to the outside.

How do you not get that?

Again, who is Mexico in your response?  Who can Al Qaeda fly to like Mexico City here where they can just walk across our border?  Where do Al Qaeda fly to where their passport would never be checked like here?


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year.
> 
> In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually I have followed the Ukraine, and I've been to the Ukraine and I understood the Ukraine BEFORE the whole thing kicked off and I understand why the Ukraine happened and why it wouldn't happen anywhere else. But then, knowing stuff shouldn't get in the way of a bad argument, should it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish.
> 
> I'm referring to Putin and the threat he is to his neignbors
Click to expand...


Putin has been a threat to poor countries with a sizable Russian population. The only countries at threat have been Georgia and the Ukraine because they meet these criteria. 

Russia put up a nice thing of inviting ethnic Russians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a chance to go back to Mother Russia. Very, VERY few took up the offer because they know they're better off in the EU in these countries than in Russia. Putin doesn't have anything to go on. 

Again, I understood the Ukraine issue long before Russia tried to take over. It doesn't surprise me that much that it happened. The Ukraine was a mess. When I last went it was as cheap as hell and now it's cheaper, the currency just kept dropping.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.
> 
> They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.
> 
> Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.
> 
> I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.
> 
> The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.
> 
> You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.
Click to expand...


You didn't read my post.  I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently.  And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it.  You are naive, wow


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you in the part that I'm against invading Iraq and that's a big waste of money.  But your view about how little the actual defense part costs is overstated.  We are a global power, the cost is higher than you give credit to the underlying defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year.
> 
> In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually I have followed the Ukraine, and I've been to the Ukraine and I understood the Ukraine BEFORE the whole thing kicked off and I understand why the Ukraine happened and why it wouldn't happen anywhere else. But then, knowing stuff shouldn't get in the way of a bad argument, should it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish.
> 
> I'm referring to Putin and the threat he is to his neignbors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has been a threat to poor countries with a sizable Russian population. The only countries at threat have been Georgia and the Ukraine because they meet these criteria.
> 
> Russia put up a nice thing of inviting ethnic Russians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a chance to go back to Mother Russia. Very, VERY few took up the offer because they know they're better off in the EU in these countries than in Russia. Putin doesn't have anything to go on.
> 
> Again, I understood the Ukraine issue long before Russia tried to take over. It doesn't surprise me that much that it happened. The Ukraine was a mess. When I last went it was as cheap as hell and now it's cheaper, the currency just kept dropping.
Click to expand...


the Russian economy is in the toilet too, which makes them a far greater threat.  The Balkans BTW are very worried even if you aren't, they keep trying to tie themselves closer to NATO


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Um...OK?  You responded to me literally and completely whiffed on the actual point.  The Schengen agreement is an agreement of developed countries.  Al Qaeda can't fly to any of them with no border security.  Columbian and Afghan drugs can't go to any of them without border security.  Unlike our borders which have no security.  Only the developed countries within the Schengen area can travel, they have security to the outside.
> 
> How do you not get that?
> 
> Again, who is Mexico in your response?  Who can Al Qaeda fly to like Mexico City here where they can just walk across our border?  Where do Al Qaeda fly to where their passport would never be checked like here?



Fine. Let's take the borders around EU countries. I've travelled a few times through the Balkans, they don't really have border fences. If you wanted to walk from one country to another, you'd not have many problems at all. 

You may also have noticed there is a large coastline. People smuggling seems to be quite easy, can't be harder to get guns and things in, can it. 

If you can walk across the US/Mexican border, then you can just walk across the Serbian/Croatian border. 

I've never had problems, never had much in the way of checks down there. I've been to most countries around there without having bags searched or anything like that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. So, the US is a global power which spends a hell of a lot of money on its military. How much was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan? How much is spent keeping Israel's military up too? That's like $4 billion a year.
> 
> In the Cold War it wasn't the US which was facing threat of invasion, it was Europe, mostly Germany and military spending reflected this. However Europe has become closer since, with very few countries being outside of the loop, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine sometimes, and not many others to be honest. So what's with the need for defense spending when the threat is so low. The biggest threat to Europe has come from the fallout of the Iraq war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually I have followed the Ukraine, and I've been to the Ukraine and I understood the Ukraine BEFORE the whole thing kicked off and I understand why the Ukraine happened and why it wouldn't happen anywhere else. But then, knowing stuff shouldn't get in the way of a bad argument, should it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish.
> 
> I'm referring to Putin and the threat he is to his neignbors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has been a threat to poor countries with a sizable Russian population. The only countries at threat have been Georgia and the Ukraine because they meet these criteria.
> 
> Russia put up a nice thing of inviting ethnic Russians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a chance to go back to Mother Russia. Very, VERY few took up the offer because they know they're better off in the EU in these countries than in Russia. Putin doesn't have anything to go on.
> 
> Again, I understood the Ukraine issue long before Russia tried to take over. It doesn't surprise me that much that it happened. The Ukraine was a mess. When I last went it was as cheap as hell and now it's cheaper, the currency just kept dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Russian economy is in the toilet too, which makes them a far greater threat.  The Balkans BTW are very worried even if you aren't, they keep trying to tie themselves closer to NATO
Click to expand...


It makes them a threat if you understand what Putin's doing. If you don't, then you might make wrong interpretations.

The Balkans? Why? Serbia is a good friend of Russia, and none of the Balkans sits next to Russia. I'm confused.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't followed the Ukraine, have you?  Europe has
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually I have followed the Ukraine, and I've been to the Ukraine and I understood the Ukraine BEFORE the whole thing kicked off and I understand why the Ukraine happened and why it wouldn't happen anywhere else. But then, knowing stuff shouldn't get in the way of a bad argument, should it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Swish.
> 
> I'm referring to Putin and the threat he is to his neignbors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin has been a threat to poor countries with a sizable Russian population. The only countries at threat have been Georgia and the Ukraine because they meet these criteria.
> 
> Russia put up a nice thing of inviting ethnic Russians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a chance to go back to Mother Russia. Very, VERY few took up the offer because they know they're better off in the EU in these countries than in Russia. Putin doesn't have anything to go on.
> 
> Again, I understood the Ukraine issue long before Russia tried to take over. It doesn't surprise me that much that it happened. The Ukraine was a mess. When I last went it was as cheap as hell and now it's cheaper, the currency just kept dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Russian economy is in the toilet too, which makes them a far greater threat.  The Balkans BTW are very worried even if you aren't, they keep trying to tie themselves closer to NATO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes them a threat if you understand what Putin's doing. If you don't, then you might make wrong interpretations.
> 
> The Balkans? Why? Serbia is a good friend of Russia, and none of the Balkans sits next to Russia. I'm confused.
Click to expand...


Sorry, meant the Baltics


----------



## Wildman

blunthead said:


> I'm just wondering how long a so-called liberal could go without uttering the phrase "gun violence".




*i own a few guns, went to many gun shows, shopped at many gun shops and in over 60 years of being around guns, i have never seen or owned a "VIOLENT GUN", i doubt anyone else here ever has either.  
*


----------



## Wildman

blunthead said:


> *That alone should be enough evidence that left-wing thinking is way too dangerous.*




libertards have no ability to "THINK", for them it is all "touchy feeeeely", just look at their language, they always start out with "I FEEEEL..."


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%.  vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.



And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas? 

Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it.  and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...



Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily". 

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.

Europe is less violent except Britain.

Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not. 

Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.
> 
> They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.
> 
> Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.
> 
> I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.
> 
> The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.
> 
> You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read my post.  I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently.  And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it.  You are naive, wow
Click to expand...


I read it. I just disagree with you. 

I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.
> 
> They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.
> 
> Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.
> 
> I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.
> 
> The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.
> 
> You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read my post.  I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently.  And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it.  You are naive, wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it. I just disagree with you.
> 
> I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't read it because you didn't just disagree with me, you misstated what I said.

And amazing how given you think that politicians make countries great that as crappy as our politicians are we've been such a great country.  maybe it isn't about the politicians...


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> It makes them a threat if you understand what Putin's doing. If you don't, then you might make wrong interpretations.
> 
> The Balkans? Why? Serbia is a good friend of Russia, and none of the Balkans sits next to Russia. I'm confused.



Sorry, meant the Baltics[/QUOTE]

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.
> 
> They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.
> 
> Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.
> 
> I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.
> 
> The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.
> 
> You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read my post.  I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently.  And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it.  You are naive, wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it. I just disagree with you.
> 
> I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't read it because you didn't just disagree with me, you misstated what I said
Click to expand...


Well this is getting... zzz..zzz.. exciting isn't it?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, meant the Baltics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.
Click to expand...


So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.



Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I'm in the Netherlands right now.  I'm working on a project and spend half my time here and half at home in the US.
> 
> They say their politicians all talk differently, but they don't do that much differently.  And when they come to each election they keep promising the same things they promised in the last election without explaining why they never did it.
> 
> Sound familiar?  Your trust in politicians is staggeringly naive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians do talk differently. You might just not get it.
> 
> I didn't say I trusted in those politicians. Yes they use the same tricks, however it's not the tricks that are interesting. It's the fact that politicians actually look to real issues, whereas in the US it's generally issues that make sure people keep away from the real issues so the rich who control the govt can do what they like.
> 
> The US is controlled by political advertising. Europe has this so much less it's incredible.
> 
> You watch an election in Europe. It's short, sharp and generally full of politicians talking. In the US it's long, drawn out and full of adverts telling people what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read my post.  I said politicians talk differently, they don't do anything differently.  And European politicans care about the people and finding real solutions, got it.  You are naive, wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it. I just disagree with you.
> 
> I've met European politicians who actually gave a hell of a damn. I've also met ones that didn't. However I've also been to countries where things work, and I've been in the US where things don't work so well. I've also been in countries where the dictator, democratically elected in totally fair bought elections, buys his ministers Mercedes, while poor people starve to death. You know, I've see it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't read it because you didn't just disagree with me, you misstated what I said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this is getting... zzz..zzz.. exciting isn't it?
Click to expand...


yes, it's hard to have an interesting conversation when you stay at 50K feet and then keep failing to grasp the actual points being made.  your misstating what I said doesn't help either


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
Click to expand...

You would.  The People are the Militia.  Have you never read the propaganda and rhetoric of gun lovers.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would.  The People are the Militia.  Have you never read the propaganda and rhetoric of gun lovers.
Click to expand...


Which people?  All the people or just some of them?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
Click to expand...


"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
> 
> The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.
Click to expand...


Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights


----------



## PaintMyHouse

kaz said:


> Government alone can't limit rights


Oh, but it can, and does.  It both grants and limits rights.  We have these funny documents that describe such things and the will of the people is not required as we are not a democracy...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
> 
> The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.
> 
> Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights
Click to expand...


You're wrong.  Read the  Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.  

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech?  Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Wry Catcher said:


> You're wrong.  Read the links, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.  Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.
> 
> Want to test free speech, get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.


Ah, but don't you remember all the elections we had to set the speed limits?  Wait a minute, that's right, we never did that as this is not a democracy.  My bad...


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, meant the Baltics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then
Click to expand...



What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash. 

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> yes, it's hard to have an interesting conversation when you stay at 50K feet and then keep failing to grasp the actual points being made.  your misstating what I said doesn't help either



Or you just decide that I don't understand the points, or you just don't make them very well. Then it's all my fault for not being able to mind read and guess which bits are supposed to change, huh?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it.  and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily".
> 
> So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".
> 
> Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.
> 
> Europe is less violent except Britain.
> 
> Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not.
> 
> Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.
> 
> Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?
Click to expand...



From leftwing politifact...Britain is 2 times as violent as the U.S.


Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact


For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.




> Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body.



Sorry, you are wrong...in Britain, the don't count a murder a murder till the criminal has been prosecuted for murder and has run their appeals.....we count murder as soon as the cause of death is determined to be murder......so no, you are wrong.



> So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".



These countries have extreme gun control laws...as shown in my threads on how easy it is to get guns in Europe....they don't have gun stores like we have in the U.S., they have long processes for simple hunting shotguns, and you cannot own fully automatic rifles in Europe...and they get those easily...

So dodge, duck and weave, you are still wrong.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%.  vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas?
> 
> Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?
Click to expand...



Look, you want solutions....vouchers are the solution...then when we suggest vouchers you say, no, they won't work....you are the problem.......you don't really want to give poor parents a way out for their kids......vouchers give them that......and you are against them.....you want principals to share information...that and pixie dust will keep graduation rates at 50%......


----------



## danielpalos

The People are the Militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it.  and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily".
> 
> So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".
> 
> Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.
> 
> Europe is less violent except Britain.
> 
> Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not.
> 
> Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.
> 
> Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From leftwing politifact...Britain is 2 times as violent as the U.S.
> 
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact
> 
> 
> For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
> 
> For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
> 
> This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong...in Britain, the don't count a murder a murder till the criminal has been prosecuted for murder and has run their appeals.....we count murder as soon as the cause of death is determined to be murder......so no, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These countries have extreme gun control laws...as shown in my threads on how easy it is to get guns in Europe....they don't have gun stores like we have in the U.S., they have long processes for simple hunting shotguns, and you cannot own fully automatic rifles in Europe...and they get those easily...
> 
> So dodge, duck and weave, you are still wrong.
Click to expand...


Are you reading ANYTHING I'm writing? Seriously? Jeez this is becoming a head bang wall situation right here.

Every time I tell you WHY Britain's crime statistics are higher, and I keep telling you it isn't necessarily because Britain's crime is higher, and all you do is report back that Britain's crime rate is higher. 

You think using your brain and knowledge is "dodge, duck and weave" huh? Just so you can peddle your nonsense to other people and people take in your crap that is based on nothing more than what you decide is true. 

No wonder the US is turning into such a mess. People who vote don't have a clue what's going on around them, they simply make a view of what they want the case to be.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%.  vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas?
> 
> Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you want solutions....vouchers are the solution...then when we suggest vouchers you say, no, they won't work....you are the problem.......you don't really want to give poor parents a way out for their kids......vouchers give them that......and you are against them.....you want principals to share information...that and pixie dust will keep graduation rates at 50%......
Click to expand...


Again. You're talking total crap and you just keep repeating the same total crap over and over and over again. The only solution school vouchers solve is the solution of how to take money away from poor schools and put it in the pocket of rich people. But then again this is probably the problem you were looking to solve in the first place. 

You have shown absolutely nothing to show that vouchers work. You made some comment about how they can help poor kids, but not even an example of one kid who has been helped, let alone a whole host. 

And you never will prove it. Why? Because it didn't happen.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it.  and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily".
> 
> So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".
> 
> Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.
> 
> Europe is less violent except Britain.
> 
> Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not.
> 
> Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.
> 
> Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From leftwing politifact...Britain is 2 times as violent as the U.S.
> 
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact
> 
> 
> For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
> 
> For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
> 
> This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, you are wrong...in Britain, the don't count a murder a murder till the criminal has been prosecuted for murder and has run their appeals.....we count murder as soon as the cause of death is determined to be murder......so no, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These countries have extreme gun control laws...as shown in my threads on how easy it is to get guns in Europe....they don't have gun stores like we have in the U.S., they have long processes for simple hunting shotguns, and you cannot own fully automatic rifles in Europe...and they get those easily...
> 
> So dodge, duck and weave, you are still wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you reading ANYTHING I'm writing? Seriously? Jeez this is becoming a head bang wall situation right here.
> 
> Every time I tell you WHY Britain's crime statistics are higher, and I keep telling you it isn't necessarily because Britain's crime is higher, and all you do is report back that Britain's crime rate is higher.
> 
> You think using your brain and knowledge is "dodge, duck and weave" huh? Just so you can peddle your nonsense to other people and people take in your crap that is based on nothing more than what you decide is true.
> 
> No wonder the US is turning into such a mess. People who vote don't have a clue what's going on around them, they simply make a view of what they want the case to be.
Click to expand...



Politifact did exactly what you wanted and cited the stats, they compared what they could of the two systems and came up with the numbers.......of course since that shows you are wrong they are now not a legitimate source...got you.......


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%.  vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas?
> 
> Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you want solutions....vouchers are the solution...then when we suggest vouchers you say, no, they won't work....you are the problem.......you don't really want to give poor parents a way out for their kids......vouchers give them that......and you are against them.....you want principals to share information...that and pixie dust will keep graduation rates at 50%......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again. You're talking total crap and you just keep repeating the same total crap over and over and over again. The only solution school vouchers solve is the solution of how to take money away from poor schools and put it in the pocket of rich people. But then again this is probably the problem you were looking to solve in the first place.
> 
> You have shown absolutely nothing to show that vouchers work. You made some comment about how they can help poor kids, but not even an example of one kid who has been helped, let alone a whole host.
> 
> And you never will prove it. Why? Because it didn't happen.
Click to expand...



The poor schools get plenty of money....we pay more for education in these education hell holes and fail students every day......there were poor kids going to Sidwell Friends in washington D.C. on a voucher program...they were succeeding, and the first thing obama did when he got there he cancelled the program...and then when Republicans fought him and the democrats he said the kids in the program now could finish their time their but still ended the program.  Vouchers allow poor parents to send their kids to any school they can get their kid into....they don't have to be trapped by the local hell hole school.  Poor schools aren't bad because they lack funds, they are bad because they have bad government teachers......who can't be fired because of the democrat controlled unions backed by democrat politicians.....


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
> 
> The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.
> 
> Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Read the  Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.
> 
> Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.
> 
> Want to test free speech?  Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.
Click to expand...


That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, meant the Baltics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.
> 
> Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.
> 
> Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.
Click to expand...


We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.



Which ones?  All of them or some of them?


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> Politifact did exactly what you wanted and cited the stats, they compared what they could of the two systems and came up with the numbers.......of course since that shows you are wrong they are now not a legitimate source...got you.......



Uh hu. 

From what you posted

"However, before we put too much credibility on these calculations, we should note that criminologists say there is actually no good way to compare violent crime rates in these two countries."

"Another problem is that aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies are victim-reported crimes, so whether the crime gets reported varies widely, depending on such factors as the victim’s trust in the police. "

"Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. "

"And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales."

""Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns," said Shane D. Johnson, a professor in the University College of London Department of Security and Crime Science. "There may also be considerable variation across counties, or states.""

"
*Our ruling*

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

Did you read this all before telling me what you just said? Really? I mean, this backs up EVERYTHING I have been saying.

I said rape rates in the US were under reported. They suggest that rape rates in the US are higher than the UK. I said other crimes are also under reported, they estimate that assaults and threats are higher in the US than the UK. 

So, I'm just wondering how Politifact is showing that I'm wrong. You've used it as a source, it seems to show everything that I said to be true, and yet you're making some silly claim that it doesn't back me up. How?

Let me guess, you read "
*Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does" and thought this backed up your points. It doesn't. This was how they started to make their hypothesis. *

*You need to read beyond this before you post things claiming stuff it doesn't say. *


----------



## M14 Shooter

bendog said:


> I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns.  It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons


And that's the question:
How does the state prevent criminals, etc, from getting firearms w/o violating the fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution?
No sound answer to this question has been given.


> Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned."


Both cases are utterly silent on the issue of machineguns and the constitutionally of banning them.


> Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm.  The opposition to that cannot be termed rational.


The state may not presume all who choose to exercise their right to arms 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing an background check;; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.
The opposition, therefore, is fully rational.


> Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.


And so there's no rational basis for so restricting the right to arms in such a manner.   Thank you,


> But if they'd prevent one mass shooting...


If concealed carry by teachers prevented one mass shooting...


> We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic


Having any of these things, in an of themselves does not legally preclude someone from buying a gun,.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, meant the Baltics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.
> 
> Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.
> 
> Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?
Click to expand...


Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially. 

However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

You do not understand anything you read there.
You prove this with every post.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?  All of them or some of them?
Click to expand...


Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes.  Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational.  If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great.  And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns.  They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns."  you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How have I focused on restricting guns for law abiding citizens?
Click to expand...

Every single "solution" you present places a restriction on the rights of the law abiding, and in doing so, violates the constitution.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, meant the Baltics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.
> 
> Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.
> 
> Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.
> 
> However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...


Why does EU membership mean we'll honor commitments we make when we don't honor them for non EU countries?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?  All of them or some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.
Click to expand...


Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> The poor schools get plenty of money....we pay more for education in these education hell holes and fail students every day......there were poor kids going to Sidwell Friends in washington D.C. on a voucher program...they were succeeding, and the first thing obama did when he got there he cancelled the program...and then when Republicans fought him and the democrats he said the kids in the program now could finish their time their but still ended the program.  Vouchers allow poor parents to send their kids to any school they can get their kid into....they don't have to be trapped by the local hell hole school.  Poor schools aren't bad because they lack funds, they are bad because they have bad government teachers......who can't be fired because of the democrat controlled unions backed by democrat politicians.....



Poor schools get plenty of money, and..... money doesn't make good education. 

So, some kids were going on a voucher scheme which you haven't shown, and it was pulled, probably because it was a few kids. Getting a few kids into better schools is what? Nonsense, you need to be improving education across the board. 

Fine, vouchers allow parents to send kids to any school they can get into. What schools can they get into? Not any school which costs more than the vouchers I would presume. 
Also, why not just allow all states schools to be open to ALL PUPILS. Why the hell do you need a voucher that pays out mostly to rich kids' parents in order to make this choice? How is it other countries manage to give choice to the parents and kids without some ridiculous plan which involves funneling money away from poor schools and putting it in rich parents pockets? 

Poor schools ARE bad because of teachers and leaders of the school being bad. However to make a good school you need money.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to make an argument for a scheme which is all about taking money away from poor schools and giving it to rich parents based on the the fact that money doesn't make education, however education without money will be bad education?

You like to twist things massively.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.
> 
> Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.
> 
> Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.
> 
> However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does EU membership mean we'll honor commitments we make when we don't honor them for non EU countries?
Click to expand...


Because sometimes that's life. The US govt does things based on the interests of the US. The Ukraine was a little proxy war for supremacy over Russia, the old enemy. It was a little game. The US seems to have lost because Putin actually gets more out of winning than the US does. 

The EU is different. The EU is the pet project of the Germans and the French who will do what is necessary to make sure they have the power within the EU. If they let Russia come in and take bits off then the EU would fall apart. Russia in the Ukraine doesn't damage the EU much. The Ukraine was so far away from being an EU member it wasn't worth fighting over. 

Also these countries are NATO members, the Ukraine wasn't. NATO is there to defend itself. Perhaps it wouldn't in every case, but against Russia it would because that is exactly why Russia was made. It's be in the interests of EU countries to fight, and possibly the US, seeing as they're sending planes and missiles and things there.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?  All of them or some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?
Click to expand...


I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard. 

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh.  Whew, that's a relief.  Never mind then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.
> 
> Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.
> 
> Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.
> 
> However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does EU membership mean we'll honor commitments we make when we don't honor them for non EU countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because sometimes that's life. The US govt does things based on the interests of the US. The Ukraine was a little proxy war for supremacy over Russia, the old enemy. It was a little game. The US seems to have lost because Putin actually gets more out of winning than the US does.
> 
> The EU is different. The EU is the pet project of the Germans and the French who will do what is necessary to make sure they have the power within the EU. If they let Russia come in and take bits off then the EU would fall apart. Russia in the Ukraine doesn't damage the EU much. The Ukraine was so far away from being an EU member it wasn't worth fighting over.
> 
> Also these countries are NATO members, the Ukraine wasn't. NATO is there to defend itself. Perhaps it wouldn't in every case, but against Russia it would because that is exactly why Russia was made. It's be in the interests of EU countries to fight, and possibly the US, seeing as they're sending planes and missiles and things there.
Click to expand...


You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?  All of them or some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.
> 
> The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.
Click to expand...


Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice.  Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on



Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?  All of them or some of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.
> 
> The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice.  Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you
Click to expand...


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
Click to expand...


Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which ones?  All of them or some of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.
> 
> The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice.  Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...


What is unclear about it?  it's a direct response to your last post where you said the government decides who is a militia


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
Click to expand...


Why would you think they can't defend themselves? 

US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
EU Military active manpower 1.5 million. 

Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.
> 
> The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice.  Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unclear about it?  it's a direct response to your last post where you said the government decides who is a militia
Click to expand...


Well, I was making the assumption that you'd have read my post. 

I said the right to bear arms was the right to be in militia. You know what this means? It means almost all adults have the right to be in the militia. HOWEVER, because the right exists and the US govt KNOWS that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, they decided to just put most males into the "unorganised militia" so they couldn't go to court griping about their right to bear arms. 

It was a perfect solution. So, the US govt can decide who is in the militia, however it can't decide who is not in the militia before due process. 

I'm sorry if I made an assumption that you'd have been able to understand something so fundamental from what I wrote.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the People (who are  the Militia), that is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
> 
> The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.
> 
> Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Read the  Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.
> 
> Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.
> 
> Want to test free speech?  Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms
Click to expand...


*Point missed* ^^^!  

It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government. 

It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.


----------



## Wry Catcher

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.
> 
> The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice.  Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is unclear about it?  it's a direct response to your last post where you said the government decides who is a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I was making the assumption that you'd have read my post.
> 
> I said the right to bear arms was the right to be in militia. You know what this means? It means almost all adults have the right to be in the militia. HOWEVER, because the right exists and the US govt KNOWS that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, they decided to just put most males into the "unorganised militia" so they couldn't go to court griping about their right to bear arms.
> 
> It was a perfect solution. So, the US govt can decide who is in the militia, however it can't decide who is not in the militia before due process.
> 
> I'm sorry if I made an assumption that you'd have been able to understand something so fundamental from what I wrote.
Click to expand...


What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their is an active militia and an inactive militia.  The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft.  Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns  ain't members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand anything you read there.
> You prove this with every post.
Click to expand...


Oh please Wise and Wonderful shooter, do educate me on how to read with comprehension and the ability to make obvious inferences.   I need your guidance, as someone whose nom de plume is M14 Shooter you must be unbiased,  trustworthy and morally pure.

I await you counsel and guidance with expectation.

[Sarcasm  Alert]


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> *Point missed* ^^^!
> It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.


Not that you have the capacity to soundly respond, but...
Yes - because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
How does simple possession/ownership of a firearm place anyone in in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts,....


Excellent characterization of most, if not all, of your posts regarding gun control.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters.  So which people are the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
> 
> The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.
> 
> Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Read the  Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.
> 
> Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.
> 
> Want to test free speech?  Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Point missed* ^^^!
> 
> It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.
> 
> It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.
Click to expand...


*Point missed* ^^^! 

government cannot convict you of a crime on it's own


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
> 
> The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion.  I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.
> 
> Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Read the  Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.
> 
> Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.
> 
> Want to test free speech?  Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Point missed* ^^^!
> 
> It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.
> 
> It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Point missed* ^^^!
> 
> government cannot convict you of a crime on it's own
Click to expand...


LOL, really?  What planet are you from?


M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts,....
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent characterization of most, if not all, of your posts regarding gun control.
Click to expand...


My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.  Your opinion is based exclusively on the 2nd, what you call "due process" and your ridiculous effort to prove to be a modern Nostradamus.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.


This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people.  Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed.  That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.
> 
> Everyone is in the "militia."  That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right.  The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people.  Government alone can't limit rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  Read the  Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.
> 
> Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.
> 
> Want to test free speech?  Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Point missed* ^^^!
> 
> It is speech freely spoken and limited by the rule of law, a law and regulation imposed by and enforced by the government.
> 
> It is illegal to rob a bank, by gun or water balloon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Point missed* ^^^!
> 
> government cannot convict you of a crime on it's own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, really?  What planet are you from?
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent characterization of most, if not all, of your posts regarding gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.  Your opinion is based exclusively on the 2nd, what you call "due process" and your ridiculous effort to prove to be a modern Nostradamus.
Click to expand...


You don't know what a jury is apparently


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Your repetitious comments are the lie, but given you're not bright enough to expand on your allegations with evidence, it's best to continue to remind others that anyone whose nom de plume is M14 shooter is a single issue concrete thinker. 

I hesitate to use the word thinker in any reference to anything posted by shooter, so I remind the reader that any_ thinking_ shooter engages in, is limited to defending his love of guns and callous disregard for the victims of gun violence in America.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
Click to expand...

Yawn.
Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think they can't defend themselves?
> 
> US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
> EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.
> 
> Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.
Click to expand...



They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact did exactly what you wanted and cited the stats, they compared what they could of the two systems and came up with the numbers.......of course since that shows you are wrong they are now not a legitimate source...got you.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh hu.
> 
> From what you posted
> 
> "However, before we put too much credibility on these calculations, we should note that criminologists say there is actually no good way to compare violent crime rates in these two countries."
> 
> "Another problem is that aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies are victim-reported crimes, so whether the crime gets reported varies widely, depending on such factors as the victim’s trust in the police. "
> 
> "Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. "
> 
> "And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales."
> 
> ""Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns," said Shane D. Johnson, a professor in the University College of London Department of Security and Crime Science. "There may also be considerable variation across counties, or states.""
> 
> "
> *Our ruling*
> 
> The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."
> 
> Did you read this all before telling me what you just said? Really? I mean, this backs up EVERYTHING I have been saying.
> 
> I said rape rates in the US were under reported. They suggest that rape rates in the US are higher than the UK. I said other crimes are also under reported, they estimate that assaults and threats are higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> So, I'm just wondering how Politifact is showing that I'm wrong. You've used it as a source, it seems to show everything that I said to be true, and yet you're making some silly claim that it doesn't back me up. How?
> 
> Let me guess, you read "
> *Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does" and thought this backed up your points. It doesn't. This was how they started to make their hypothesis. *
> 
> *You need to read beyond this before you post things claiming stuff it doesn't say. *
Click to expand...



Sorry moron...you didn't read closely enough......politifact is a left wing source and after pointing out that indeed, Britain has 2 times the violent crime rate that we do....they went on to prove their own research wrong because they had already proven that the British crime rate is 2 times higher...they had to fix that.....I posted what they found....notice what they say here......which you posted.....



> Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries,



But there is a difference, they stated the difference and it is almost 2 times higher violent crime in Britain......

That is the 2 times the violent crime rate where as they were investigating..hang on....I'll post it specifically, again...

Again...this is what they found and I posted.....

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact


For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." *This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.*

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. *We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.*

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

'
But it is still greater............they had to try to hide that in the rest of the article.....it is just about 2 times greater comparing their stats as closely as they could to corresponding stats here in the U.S......


----------



## 2aguy

And genius.....how is giving poor people vouchers for their share of education dollars robbing poor schools to give money to rich people?  They can spend that money anywhere they want and each student would get the same amount...again, how is that just giving money to rich people?

And here, this points out how obama cut the successful voucher program in D.C. because the teachers unions know it will get rid of bad teachers...

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


In 2008, the program funded attendance at 54 D.C. private schools for students from families with an average income of $22,736, "or about 107 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of four."[1]

In 2009 the program faced a phase out with President Barack Obama’s 2009 budget proposal cutting all funding for the program and including language to prohibit any new students from receiving scholarships.[2]

In 2011, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act to restore funding for the program and again allow new students to participate. The entirety of the SOAR Act was included in the 2011 long-term continuing resolution, the passage of which resulted in a five-year reauthorization of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program.[3] The 2004 legislation had permitted students to receive scholarships of up to $7,500, whereas the 2011 bill provides scholarships of up to $8,000 for students in kindergarten through eighth grade and up to $12,000 for students in grades 9-12.[4]

In February 2012, President Barack Obama announced his budget proposal for 2013, which did not include new funding for the program.[


And the actual results....for the poorest kids.....


Students who were offered vouchers had a graduation rate of 82%, while those who actually used their vouchers had a graduation rate of 91%. By comparison, the rate for students who did not receive vouchers was only 70%. The study received the Department of Education’s highest rating for scientific rigor.[11]* Over 90% of the study’s participants were African American, and most of the remainder were Latino American.*

*Further research found that students who received vouchers were 25% more likely to enroll in college than students with similar demographic characteristics who did not receive vouchers.*[12]


Yeah...can't have more minorities going to college can we......?


----------



## 2aguy

And the state of gun crime in the U.K....they are bad shots....

UK s gun crime capital rancour and regret over West Midlands label UK news The Guardian


“From 2005 to 2010 it was active, shootings were regular but they almost came to a stop for the main part of 2013. It’s slowly beginning to build back up again.”



The ONS figures show there were 540 firearms offences in the West Midlands in 2013-14, three times fewer than the 1,594 incidents in London. However, when the figures are compared per 100,000 of the population, the West Midlands has a rate of 19.4 incidents compared to 18.95 in the capital.

There were 41 more firearms offences in the West Midlands last year compared to the previous year, meaning that the region accounted for one in nine incidents of gun crime recorded in England and Wales.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
Click to expand...


Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
Click to expand...

Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion on gun control is punctuated by evidence (reality), facts and the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
Click to expand...


LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
Click to expand...

He's right.
We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
Click to expand...


An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.

The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.

The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.

A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.

Rabbi(t) is full of shit.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.  The child would drive the car into the garage and run it until CO poisoning.  The child would jump off a building.  The child would OD on prescription drugs.
You're full of shit, as usual.
There are no laws that will prevent gun violence.  Period.


----------



## MaryL

Jesus Christ; Because it's just as easy to keep guns our of everyone's  hands period. Good bad, left right,  Nazi, socialist, nutcase radicals. Enough is enough.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an utter and complete lie - you and I both know that all of your arguments regarding gun control are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Your repetitious comments are the lie,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
Click to expand...

And all you can do is argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## MaryL

Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.


----------



## JFish123

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
Click to expand...

The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wry Catcher

JFish123 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them".  I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever. 

The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.

Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them".  I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
> The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.


If by "straw men" you mean "illustrate how all of your arguments are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly", then you;re right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MaryL said:


> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.


No offense but...  You're going to have to a lot better than that.


----------



## MaryL

JFish123 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

 People with guns need to protect each other . It's a bitter self  fulfilling cycle.


----------



## MaryL

M14 Shooter said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but...  You're going to have to a lot better than that.
Click to expand...

De ja ju, Better than..what?  What standard  of perfection are you subscribing to?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

MaryL said:


> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol.



Which is why millions of women own them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Wry Catcher said:


> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.



Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts. 

Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think they can't defend themselves?
> 
> US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
> EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.
> 
> Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......
Click to expand...


This sounds like the sort of high school "my dad's better than your dad" sort of nonsense.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> Sorry moron..



I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.

I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.


----------



## Hugo Furst

frigidweirdo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
Click to expand...



As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).

Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.

Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them".  I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.
> 
> The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.
> 
> Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,
Click to expand...

You understand all of those things you list are already prohibitions on gun ownership, right?  And yet those same folks have no trouble getting guns.
So what is your solution?


----------



## The Rabbi

WillHaftawaite said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Click to expand...

You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WillHaftawaite said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about. 

I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia. 

Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.


----------



## danielpalos

The Rabbi said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
Click to expand...

I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.


----------



## The Rabbi

frigidweirdo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
> 
> Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
Click to expand...

What people are automatically in the militia?


----------



## The Rabbi

danielpalos said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
Click to expand...


That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
Sorry.


----------



## danielpalos

The Rabbi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
> Sorry.
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion?  How lazy of the _capital_ right to have a _social_, hard work ethic.


----------



## The Rabbi

danielpalos said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
> Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  How lazy of the _capital_ right to have a _social_, hard work ethic.
Click to expand...

I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.


----------



## danielpalos

The Rabbi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
> Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  How lazy of the _capital_ right to have a _social_, hard work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.
Click to expand...

Fair is a social concept not a capital concept.  any Thing else?


----------



## The Rabbi

danielpalos said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
> Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  How lazy of the _capital_ right to have a _social_, hard work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair is a social concept not a capital concept.  any Thing else?
Click to expand...

That's not true in the paleo-existential construct.
Game, set, match.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Rabbi said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
Click to expand...



I do.

Others seem to believe belonging to the militia is necessary for gun ownership.


----------



## Hugo Furst

frigidweirdo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
> 
> Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
Click to expand...



Be nice if you could read what I wrote.

I pointed out who couldn't be in a militia, and that it did NOT disqualify them from owning a firearm.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
Click to expand...



Still trolling?


----------



## danielpalos

The Rabbi said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
> Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion?  How lazy of the _capital_ right to have a _social_, hard work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair is a social concept not a capital concept.  any Thing else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true in the paleo-existential construct.
> Game, set, match.
Click to expand...

Sorry; that concept may omit game theory and therefore less valid.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Others seem to believe belonging to the militia is necessary for gun ownership.
Click to expand...

No.  Only the clueless and the Causeless fail to distinguish between _keep and bear _and _acquire and possess_ to denote rights in private property which are secured in State Constitutions with those Terms.

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still trolling?
Click to expand...

I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Others seem to believe belonging to the militia is necessary for gun ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Only the clueless and the Cause fail to distinguish between keep and bear and acquire and possess to denote rights in private property which are secured in State Constitutions with those Terms.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
Click to expand...



Admitting you're clueless?

about time.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
Click to expand...



Everything you post is trolling.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
Click to expand...



"Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"

Yes, you probably are


----------



## Hugo Furst

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"
> 
> Yes, you probably are
Click to expand...


I've wasted enough time on you, troll.

bye


----------



## danielpalos

Not enough of a social work ethic for free to have a clue or a Cause; I got it Person on the clueless and Causeless and too lazy to become less ignorant of the law, on the Right.


----------



## Indofred

kaz said:


> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals



I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
I would introduce one gun law:



> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.



People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.

All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.


----------



## Ernie S.

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

Joseph Story articulated in his influential _Commentaries on the Constitution_[131] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[132][133]

Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[133]


----------



## Ernie S.

Indofred said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
Click to expand...

I'm all for issuing judges in death penalty cases a .357 magnum.
"This court hear-by sentences you to death." BANG.


----------



## Ernie S.

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.
> 
> How stupid are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Q.  How stupid are you
> 
> A.  At least two standard deviations above your level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns.  I get it now, thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool.  As did Scalia in Heller:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
> 
> Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what "sacrosanct" is supposed to mean.  It is a right equal to, not greater than or less than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a jury trial, the right to not have your personal property searched without a warrant, ...
> 
> It can only be like your other rights limited by the due process of law.
> 
> The argument though that the bill of rights protects government's rights though is just frankly retarded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lib argument is that because the 2A is subject to restrictions therefore it can be restricted until it is meaningless.  This is gross ignorance.  Government has to show an interest in restricting rights and frankly, almost every restriction should not pass muster.
Click to expand...

The Wiki article on Amendment 2 I linked above has some interesting content from the Framers and their contemporaries as to why the amendment says "shall not be
infringed"; mainly because English law restricted arms to Protestants and limited design "to preserve game". Interesting that hunting comes up so much in the Liberal argument. Have Conservatives have become the Liberals' Catholics?


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> 
> Joseph Story articulated in his influential _Commentaries on the Constitution_[131] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:
> 
> The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[132][133]
> 
> Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[133]


Unfortunately, it also means the People need to have a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause.  Unlike the right.


----------



## Ernie S.

WillHaftawaite said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trolling?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"
> 
> Yes, you probably are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted enough time on you, troll.
> 
> bye
Click to expand...

Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Ernie S. said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"
> 
> Yes, you probably are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted enough time on you, troll.
> 
> bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.
Click to expand...



I should have.

He is now, tho.
I only enjoy slogging thru a swamp to a certain degree, then I need to wash off, or dispose of, my waders.


----------



## danielpalos

Ernie S. said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"
> 
> Yes, you probably are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted enough time on you, troll.
> 
> bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.
Click to expand...

Here is the Operative statement from Judge Story's discourse:  _How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see._

It is clearly legislated as the Intent and Purpose by the legislators.
_A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_


----------



## danielpalos

How seriously can we take the clueless and Causeless Right, when they appeal to ignorance instead of working hard to acquire and possess a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them".  I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.
> 
> The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.
> 
> Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,
Click to expand...



And we have gun control in this country.  If you use a gun to commit a crime you can be arrested and put in jail.  If you are a convicted criminal, or any of those categories you mentioned and you are caught in the mere possession of a gun you can be arrested and put in jail.  That is gun control at it's finest.....that gun control works.  The other schemes you have do not work, and just make it more difficult for law abiding, peaceful citizens to own guns.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
Click to expand...



Yes...and in a country of over 320 million people...how many children die because they found a gun and used it?  Less than 100 a year.  The leading cause of death of children is riding in a car.  There are 90 million homes with guns in them, and over 12.8 million people carry guns for self defense...the number of accidental deaths each year.....505.

The number of times guns are used to stop or prevent violent crime and save lives each year on average....2 million.  That is non military, non police use of a gun for self defense.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
Click to expand...



And as to how foolish you are...the leading method of suicide for children in Canada......a listed gun control paradise for gun control extremists....suffocation.....

Suicide among children and adolescents in Canada trends and sex differences 1980 2008

*Interpretation:*

Our results show that suicide rates in Canada are increasing among female children and adolescents and decreasing among male children and adolescents. Limiting access to lethal means has some potential to mitigate risk. However, suffocation, which has become the predominant method for committing suicide for these age groups, is not amenable to this type of primary prevention.

Suicide was ranked as the second leading cause of death among Canadians aged 10–34 years in 2008.1 It is recognized that suicidal behaviour and ideation is an important public health issue among children and adolescents; disturbingly, suicide is a leading cause of Canadian childhood mortality (i.e., among youths aged 10–19 years).2,3

Between 1980 and 2008, there were substantial improvements in mortality attributable to unintentional injury among 10–19 year olds, with rates decreasing from 37.7 per 100 000 to 10.7 per 100 000; suicide rates, however, showed less improvement, with only a small reduction during the same period (from 6.2 per 100 000 in 1980 to 5.2 per 100 000 in 2008).1

Previous studies that looked at suicides among Canadian adolescents and young adults (i.e., people aged 15–25 years) have reported rates as being generally stable over time, but with a marked increase in suicides by suffocation and a decrease in those involving firearms.2

Wait...so what they are saying is that if they don't use a gun they will still kill themselves......but...but.............gun control.....right......


----------



## 2aguy

MaryL said:


> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.




Americans use guns to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives 2 million times a year on average.  So you need to hang around with different types of men....since the biggest factors in violent death in a home is not gun ownership, but alcohol and drug abuse and a history of violence or criminal activity....hang out with better men...preferably non democrats...they go to jail more often.


----------



## 2aguy

MaryL said:


> Jesus Christ; Because it's just as easy to keep guns our of everyone's  hands period. Good bad, left right,  Nazi, socialist, nutcase radicals. Enough is enough.




No it isn't.  They can't even keep fully automatic rifles out of the hands of European criminals even with all of their extreme gun control.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
Click to expand...



And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think they can't defend themselves?
> 
> US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
> EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.
> 
> Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like the sort of high school "my dad's better than your dad" sort of nonsense.
Click to expand...



Europe has a history of dangerous pacifism........in the face of great evil.


----------



## frigidweirdo

WillHaftawaite said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
> 
> Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Be nice if you could read what I wrote.
> 
> I pointed out who couldn't be in a militia, and that it did NOT disqualify them from owning a firearm.
Click to expand...


I know this. I don't need you to point this out. However what you wrote didn't have much to do with what I wrote, so what's the point of reading something that's ignored what I said? Don't try and play tricks here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
Click to expand...


Yeah, you just tell yourself that this is what I've said. Delusion isn't great, but it keeps some people going.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just tell yourself that this is what I've said. Delusion isn't great, but it keeps some people going.
Click to expand...



You should get help with your delusions....many with your views are quite delusional, they have a hard time understanding the truth, reality, right and wrong, and good and evil......you can't help it....but you could work on it....


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think they can't defend themselves?
> 
> US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
> EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.
> 
> Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......
Click to expand...


Yes, Europe fighting Russia over the Baltics with the US is a long shot, without us it's zero


----------



## kaz

JFish123 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Thanks!  Amazing no matter how many times you point out to liberals that honest citizens follow the law and criminals don't, they don't grasp it.  Buy an illegal gun?  A criminal wouldn't do that, would they?  Yeah...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them".  I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.
> 
> The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.
> 
> Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,
Click to expand...


Dude, you are the one who keeps building straw men, you keep saying they are saying that criminals can have guns, when we keep telling you that rights, including the right to have guns, can be limited with ... wait for it ... due process of law.   Still haven't seen you process that.

You also keep evading the point that a gun at home because it's illegal to carry with you when you are being shot at is not having a gun.  See the Washington Navy yard where ... military ... people were prohibited from having guns.  The gunman went to where guns weren't allowed, killed the one guy who could have a gun first (the security guard), then opened fire on unarmed people.  Yeah, a coincidence.  Just like the overwhelming pattern of mass shootings in gun free zones:  Sandy Hood, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine, ...


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People with guns need to protect each other . It's a bitter self  fulfilling cycle.
Click to expand...


So the problem isn't criminals with guns, it's people trying to protect themselves from the people with guns?  Is that seriously what you just said?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US?  Dream on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think they can't defend themselves?
> 
> US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
> EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.
> 
> Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like the sort of high school "my dad's better than your dad" sort of nonsense.
Click to expand...


You don't follow European politics


----------



## kaz

Indofred said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
Click to expand...


Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy


----------



## frigidweirdo

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just tell yourself that this is what I've said. Delusion isn't great, but it keeps some people going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should get help with your delusions....many with your views are quite delusional, they have a hard time understanding the truth, reality, right and wrong, and good and evil......you can't help it....but you could work on it....
Click to expand...


Thing is, I back up what I say. You say stuff, and I prove it wrong. You merely disappear and come back a week later saying the same nonsense and hoping now one will prove it wrong again. Flimsy logic is not logic. You take random quotes from places and without thinking about how they relate to the world, you use them, and you get it wrong almost every time, without fail.                               

The worst of all is that you actually used a source that you claimed backed you up, when it didn't do that because you didn't even bother to read your own source. It's amazing.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? The EU is larger than the US and Russia. The US would probably jump on board, but the EU would make the decision regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suurreee they would.  They can't even defend themselves without us.  What difference does the number of people in the country make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you think they can't defend themselves?
> 
> US Military active manpower 1.3 million.
> EU Military active manpower 1.5 million.
> 
> Both have about 8,000 tanks, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the balls............you can have all the tanks and guns you want but you need to actually have men and women ready to fight.....the E.U. welfare kids will only fight when the tanks are rolling into their internet cafes......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like the sort of high school "my dad's better than your dad" sort of nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't follow European politics
Click to expand...


Is that a statement or a question? 

If it's a statement, I'd ask how you would know.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Thanks!  Amazing no matter how many times you point out to liberals that honest citizens follow the law and criminals don't, they don't grasp it.  Buy an illegal gun?  A criminal wouldn't do that, would they?  Yeah...



Do they? Honest citizens break the law all the time, they just don't get caught.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> [
> Yes, Europe fighting Russia over the Baltics with the US is a long shot, without us it's zero



If Russia were to invade the EU would have no choice.

The funny thing is you seem to think that only the US would go to war, or take that initiative. Maybe Europe isn't so big on the whole invading other countries simply because they can. But then again if, say, the Falkland Islands got invaded, do you think the British would wait for the Americans? They didn't last time it happened, the US didn't help much at all.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Yes, Europe fighting Russia over the Baltics with the US is a long shot, without us it's zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Russia were to invade the EU would have no choice.
> 
> The funny thing is you seem to think that only the US would go to war, or take that initiative. Maybe Europe isn't so big on the whole invading other countries simply because they can. But then again if, say, the Falkland Islands got invaded, do you think the British would wait for the Americans? They didn't last time it happened, the US didn't help much at all.
Click to expand...


I'm against Iraq, dumb ass.  I'm also against nation building in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and the rest of the wars started by both parties.  You know that if you have long term memory.

And "no choice?"  You mean like Ukraine who had a defense pact too so they had no choice?  LOL, you are completely clueless about European politics.  They couldn't agree on what kind of sandwich to have for lunch


----------



## Indofred

Ernie S. said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for issuing judges in death penalty cases a .357 magnum.
> "This court hear-by sentences you to death." BANG.
Click to expand...


No way - The cleaners would have a hell of a job sorting the mess out.


----------



## Indofred

kaz said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy
Click to expand...


Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
Click to expand...

Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".

Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
_


----------



## kaz

Indofred said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.
Click to expand...


No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison.  The only way to make it cheaper is to get the population overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's not going to happen


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
Click to expand...


I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance.  but it's sure good when you do


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> How seriously can we take the clueless and Causeless Right, when they appeal to ignorance instead of working hard to acquire and possess a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause.



hammer


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you post is trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"
> 
> Yes, you probably are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted enough time on you, troll.
> 
> bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the Operative statement from Judge Story's discourse:  _How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see._
> 
> It is clearly legislated as the Intent and Purpose by the legislators.
> _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_
Click to expand...


Do you like rhubarb?  I love a good rhubarb pie


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALoveSupreme
> Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question.  How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want?  What's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over.  Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one.  No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
> 
> Are you familiar with the term _Mens rea?  _Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (_actus reus) _is perpetrated? _
> _
> Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established _Mens rea_ and simply needs the right circumstance to kill.  Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
> 
> Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants,  Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.
> View attachment 45010
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them".  I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.
> 
> The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.
> 
> Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You understand all of those things you list are already prohibitions on gun ownership, right?  And yet those same folks have no trouble getting guns.
> So what is your solution?
Click to expand...


Once again Wry answers the question how we keep guns from criminals by stating his opposition to criminals having guns, that doesn't advance the argument for you?

Hmm...me either...


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
Click to expand...


yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance.  but it's sure good when you do
Click to expand...

Too lazy to have a social hard work ethic for free; i got it, Person on the clueless and Causeless and fallacious Right.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How seriously can we take the clueless and Causeless Right, when they appeal to ignorance instead of working hard to acquire and possess a Constitutional clue and a Constitutional Cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hammer
Click to expand...

I guess, "hard work" really really pays off for the Right.  Why complain only the least wealthy are lazy.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
> 
> Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
Click to expand...


Actually writing a law putting certain people automatically in a militia and stating therefore they are protected by the second amendment is a devious way to limit who is protected by the second amendment.  Everyone is protected by it. Just say that.  Writing a law that certain people are automatically protected gives the implication that not everyone is automatically protected by it.  Think about it


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?"
> 
> Yes, you probably are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted enough time on you, troll.
> 
> bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn Will! I thought you were talking to yourself. I put the idiot on ignore long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is the Operative statement from Judge Story's discourse:  _How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see._
> 
> It is clearly legislated as the Intent and Purpose by the legislators.
> _A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you like rhubarb?  I love a good rhubarb pie
Click to expand...

A clue and a Cause is too much hard work for the Right under or form of Capitalism. Is it any wonder no one takes them seriously about working hard to get ahead.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
Click to expand...

Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> Any time you wish to post a position on gun control I will happily illustrate how it derives from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- just like I always do
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
Click to expand...


One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> Jesus Christ; Because it's just as easy to keep guns our of everyone's  hands period. Good bad, left right,  Nazi, socialist, nutcase radicals. Enough is enough.



How do you do that?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
> 
> I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
> 
> Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually writing a law putting certain people automatically in a militia and stating therefore they are protected by the second amendment is a devious way to limit who is protected by the second amendment.  Everyone is protected by it. Just say that.  Writing a law that certain people are automatically protected gives the implication that not everyone is automatically protected by it.  Think about it
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is true; Only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People have literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.



I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.

And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry moron..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance.  but it's sure good when you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm sitting up straight.  your only consistency is you are consistently wrong
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Why should the left have any confidence in the sincerity of the Right regarding a work ethic when they are too lazy to even work hard on their reading comprehension; would they rather be competing with harder working illegals?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew it was there, I knew you'd revert to insulting at some point, it had to happen, you hardly have an argument, most of it is based on what you want to believe.
> 
> I'm out with you, if you really need to start insulting me, well, I just say bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have grown tired of dealing with people who can't read simple English, want to deny people the right to self defense, and then act insulted when I call them by their behavior.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless on the Right have a problem with reading comprehension while resorting to Only fallacies and claiming they are for the "gospel Truth".
> 
> Natural Rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions; literally:
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like grapefruit, but it can be kind of sour and I don't like too much sugar, it can be a trick to get the right balance.  but it's sure good when you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm sitting up straight.  your only consistency is you are consistently wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

With Only fallacy to work with; the Only hard work the Right is good at; is self-deception.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion.  Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
Click to expand...


Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
> 
> Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
Click to expand...

Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
> 
> Effectively eliminating the ability to  "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
> 
> Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.
Click to expand...


Does it really take work to be an idiot?   I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are?  Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really take work to be an idiot?   I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are?  Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?
Click to expand...

No.  I have logic and reason to work with due to a social, hard work ethic; unlike the Right.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison.  The only way to make it cheaper is to get the population overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's not going to happen
Click to expand...


"No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison"?  If you meant persons convicted and sentence to die cost more than if they were imprisoned for life, your wrong.  However your _sentence _is nonsensical.  Below are the facts:

Every death penalty sentence is reviewed, and every letter written, every motion filed, every potential witness interviewed (some several times), every stay of execution, every appeal for a new trial, and every hour of research, are billable hours paid by the taxpayers for the decades it takes before an execution is carried out.

At the same time the person convicted is in highly secure custody, and receives the same medical care, food, clothing and shelter as the rest of the inmates.


----------



## Indofred

kaz said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison.  The only way to make it cheaper is to get the population overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's not going to happen
Click to expand...


I was asked what I'd do, not what's likely to be popular.
That's where politicians go wrong; they're so scared of being kicked of the gravy train, they won't do what's required.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you do.  And we all know that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is .... the sign of a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
Click to expand...


It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.

It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
Click to expand...


Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?  

No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
Click to expand...

So that means that children never get a hold of guns and accidentally or intentionally shoot people with them in California?  Wow.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
Click to expand...

Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
How'd that work out for everybody?
But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that means that children never get a hold of guns and accidentally or intentionally shoot people with them in California?  Wow.
Click to expand...


A weak one, but a straw man still the same.  You're lack of education is showing once again Rabbi(t), as well as your biases and lack of empathy.  You are IMO a miserable being - there is nothing human about you.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really take work to be an idiot?   I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are?  Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I have logic and reason to work with due to a social, hard work ethic; unlike the Right.
Click to expand...


Tomatoes are blue in the September spring rolls


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Yes, Europe fighting Russia over the Baltics with the US is a long shot, without us it's zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Russia were to invade the EU would have no choice.
> 
> The funny thing is you seem to think that only the US would go to war, or take that initiative. Maybe Europe isn't so big on the whole invading other countries simply because they can. But then again if, say, the Falkland Islands got invaded, do you think the British would wait for the Americans? They didn't last time it happened, the US didn't help much at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm against Iraq, dumb ass.  I'm also against nation building in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and the rest of the wars started by both parties.  You know that if you have long term memory.
> 
> And "no choice?"  You mean like Ukraine who had a defense pact too so they had no choice?  LOL, you are completely clueless about European politics.  They couldn't agree on what kind of sandwich to have for lunch
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your views on Iraq have got to do with anything here.....

I'm also not sure what trying a personal insult against me are. It's a quick way of losing a discussion with me.

As for European politics, are you the one who lives in Holland, and then believes you know everything about European politics because you've been there for a few months....? Jeez.

But your post is just twilight zone, you must have been in angry hour or something because it doesn't have much to do with anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Yes, Europe fighting Russia over the Baltics with the US is a long shot, without us it's zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Russia were to invade the EU would have no choice.
> 
> The funny thing is you seem to think that only the US would go to war, or take that initiative. Maybe Europe isn't so big on the whole invading other countries simply because they can. But then again if, say, the Falkland Islands got invaded, do you think the British would wait for the Americans? They didn't last time it happened, the US didn't help much at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm against Iraq, dumb ass.  I'm also against nation building in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and the rest of the wars started by both parties.  You know that if you have long term memory.
> 
> And "no choice?"  You mean like Ukraine who had a defense pact too so they had no choice?  LOL, you are completely clueless about European politics.  They couldn't agree on what kind of sandwich to have for lunch
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your views on Iraq have got to do with anything here.....

I'm also not sure what trying a personal insult against me are. It's a quick way of losing a discussion with me.

As for European politics, are you the one who lives in Holland, and then believes you know everything about European politics because you've been there for a few months....? Jeez.

But your post is just twilight zone, you must have been in angry hour or something because it doesn't have much to do with anything.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.   This makes you the fool, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
Click to expand...



and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that means that children never get a hold of guns and accidentally or intentionally shoot people with them in California?  Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A weak one, but a straw man still the same.  You're lack of education is showing once again Rabbi(t), as well as your biases and lack of empathy.  You are IMO a miserable being - there is nothing human about you.
Click to expand...

That isnt a straw man, idiot.  You dont know what you're talking about and when called on some point of logic you deflect to stupid.
The fact is that trigger lock laws do not insure people put trigger locks on their guns.  IT just creates another class of criminals, who are otherwise law abiding citizens, for the state to prosecute.  No one is safer with trigger lock laws in place.  No one.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
Click to expand...


"liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?  

Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillHaftawaite said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
Click to expand...


The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Wry Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
Click to expand...



and if it's locked, either with a trigger lock or in a safe, it's about as useful as a wet noodle at 2am when someone comes in thru the window.


----------



## Wry Catcher

417 pages and the following is proved:

The 2nd is NOT Sacrosanct
Extreme gun lovers equate gun control as tyranny
Only criminals will have guns, if any effort to mitigate gun violence becomes law
Man is not free unless s/he is not armed at all times
A trigger lock makes a gun as lethal as a wet noodle (not)
M14 Shooter's skills to debate begin and end with spam
2aguy, Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and Zimmerman should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.


----------



## KissMy

Wry Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.

Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.

We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really take work to be an idiot?   I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are?  Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I have logic and reason to work with due to a social, hard work ethic; unlike the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tomatoes are blue in the September spring rolls
Click to expand...

I can always tell when the Right is too lazy to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause; why should the left believe the lazy Right when they claim it is a "hard work" ethic that is important, when they are too lazy to work hard for their clues and their Causes.

And, I actually like spring rolls.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillHaftawaite said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if it's locked, either with a trigger lock or in a safe, it's about as useful as a wet noodle at 2am when someone comes in thru the window.
Click to expand...


Lock your window and buy a dog, a dog is an early warning system and will give one time to grab their gun and kill someone.  It's very unlikely a child will find your gun at 0200 under your mattress or pillow, and one can remove the trigger lock when they brush their teeth before retiring for the night.  When at home and the gun is in their custody and control they are following the letter of the law.

How many times has someone entered your home in the middle of the night when you are home?  A  "Cat"  burglar is a rare bread of criminal, I doubt you honestly know of anyone whose occupied home has been entered in the middle of the night.  And, BTW, I support the 2nd in terms of responsible people protecting their home.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
Click to expand...

Supporters of gun control are uniformly liberals. But not all liberals are in favor of gun control.  I realize that distinction might tax your brain.
But look at the difference in reaction to the church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and the church in South Carolina. You'll probably have to google the New Life Church shootings because it was so under-reported.


----------



## Wry Catcher

KissMy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
Click to expand...


The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.

Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).


----------



## Hugo Furst

Wry Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if it's locked, either with a trigger lock or in a safe, it's about as useful as a wet noodle at 2am when someone comes in thru the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lock your window and buy a dog, a dog is an early warning system and will give one time to grab their gun and kill someone.  It's very unlikely a child will find your gun at 0200 under your mattress or pillow, and one can remove the trigger lock when they brush their teeth before retiring for the night.  When at home and the gun is in their custody and control they are following the letter of the law.
> 
> How many times has someone entered your home in the middle of the night when you are home?  A  "Cat"  burglar is a rare bread of criminal, I doubt you honestly know of anyone whose occupied home has been entered in the middle of the night.  And, BTW, I support the 2nd in terms of responsible people protecting their home.
Click to expand...



and yet you want to make their weapons all but useless.


----------



## 2aguy

MaryL said:


> Jesus Christ; Because it's just as easy to keep guns our of everyone's  hands period. Good bad, left right,  Nazi, socialist, nutcase radicals. Enough is enough.




I think this woman explains it rather well.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supporters of gun control are uniformly liberals. But not all liberals are in favor of gun control.  I realize that distinction might tax your brain.
> But look at the difference in reaction to the church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and the church in South Carolina. You'll probably have to google the New Life Church shootings because it was so under-reported.
Click to expand...


How many meetings occur in every church in America everyday, and twice or more on Sunday?  Pointing out a shooting where the crazed gunman was killed by a member of the church eight years ago is hardly convincing of anything beyond your desperate need to find some reason to attack efforts to reasonably mitigate gun violence in America.

Advocating for more guns iin the hands of more people is insane.


----------



## The Rabbi

KissMy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
Click to expand...

They can start by browsing posts on this message board.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillHaftawaite said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if it's locked, either with a trigger lock or in a safe, it's about as useful as a wet noodle at 2am when someone comes in thru the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lock your window and buy a dog, a dog is an early warning system and will give one time to grab their gun and kill someone.  It's very unlikely a child will find your gun at 0200 under your mattress or pillow, and one can remove the trigger lock when they brush their teeth before retiring for the night.  When at home and the gun is in their custody and control they are following the letter of the law.
> 
> How many times has someone entered your home in the middle of the night when you are home?  A  "Cat"  burglar is a rare bread of criminal, I doubt you honestly know of anyone whose occupied home has been entered in the middle of the night.  And, BTW, I support the 2nd in terms of responsible people protecting their home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you want to make their weapons all but useless.
Click to expand...


LOL, another weak logical fallacy - the ubiquitous straw man - is offered as evidence of what I want and how it would be useless.  

My opinion is constantly being reinforced that the gun lovers on this message board, in mass, haven't the competence expected of a Middle School average student.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supporters of gun control are uniformly liberals. But not all liberals are in favor of gun control.  I realize that distinction might tax your brain.
> But look at the difference in reaction to the church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and the church in South Carolina. You'll probably have to google the New Life Church shootings because it was so under-reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many meetings occur in every church in America everyday, and twice or more on Sunday?  Pointing out a shooting where the crazed gunman was killed by a member of the church eight years ago is hardly convincing of anything beyond your desperate need to find some reason to attack efforts to reasonably mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> Advocating for more guns iin the hands of more people is insane.
Click to expand...



Well....of the church shootings that have happened...this is the body count of churches that are gun free zones, and churches with armed citizens.....

Some details to help you make your guess....

*Churches that were gun free zones: 15 dead*

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)


vs.

*churches with armed citizens: 2 dead
*

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
*No guns:*

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)

*Parishioners with guns:*

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Yeah....a big difference in the lives lost...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supporters of gun control are uniformly liberals. But not all liberals are in favor of gun control.  I realize that distinction might tax your brain.
> But look at the difference in reaction to the church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and the church in South Carolina. You'll probably have to google the New Life Church shootings because it was so under-reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many meetings occur in every church in America everyday, and twice or more on Sunday?  Pointing out a shooting where the crazed gunman was killed by a member of the church eight years ago is hardly convincing of anything beyond your desperate need to find some reason to attack efforts to reasonably mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> Advocating for more guns iin the hands of more people is insane.
Click to expand...



And yet over 12.8 million Americans now carry guns for self defense....and the gun murder rate is going down, not up....

You morons on your side say "There is no way you can say guns lowered the crime rate."  True..to a point.  But the thing that you guys try to ignore.......

More guns in the hands of Law abiding people did not increase the gun murder rate....

You are wrong in everything you post...........


----------



## kaz

Indofred said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hardly a liberal, but I'm going to answer anyway.
> I would introduce one gun law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you commit a violent crime using, or whilst holding a firearm (or any of your 'crew' having one - including replicas), you get the death by firing squad with no chance of reprieve, that sentence to be carried out within 24 hours of conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use guns for crime will get rare after the first few lots get what they deserve.
> Once you've shown the criminals what's going to happen to them, there will be no further need to carry guns outside sporting purposes.
> 
> All problems solved, save the hearing problems and headaches caused by listening to the lefties and churches whining about the sanctity of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Locking up criminals has worked pretty well, that's been the one effective strategy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ner - shoot the bastards - cheaper and no repeat offences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, death penalty cases no cost far more than life in prison.  The only way to make it cheaper is to get the population overwhelmingly in favor of it, and that's not going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was asked what I'd do, not what's likely to be popular.
> That's where politicians go wrong; they're so scared of being kicked of the gravy train, they won't do what's required.
Click to expand...


Not sure what point you're making, but you gave your opinion, I gave mine.  Let's both stipulate that we're on a message board and that's how it works.

The issue is effectiveness.  Regardless of whether you blame politicians, without consistent enforcement, there is no effective deterrent.  And cost will not as I pointed out be less.  Which means the proposal isn't going to deter crime.

If we focus on life in prison unless there is new information, we'll go a lot further with effectiveness


----------



## Hugo Furst

Wry Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if it's locked, either with a trigger lock or in a safe, it's about as useful as a wet noodle at 2am when someone comes in thru the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lock your window and buy a dog, a dog is an early warning system and will give one time to grab their gun and kill someone.  It's very unlikely a child will find your gun at 0200 under your mattress or pillow, and one can remove the trigger lock when they brush their teeth before retiring for the night.  When at home and the gun is in their custody and control they are following the letter of the law.
> 
> How many times has someone entered your home in the middle of the night when you are home?  A  "Cat"  burglar is a rare bread of criminal, I doubt you honestly know of anyone whose occupied home has been entered in the middle of the night.  And, BTW, I support the 2nd in terms of responsible people protecting their home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you want to make their weapons all but useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, another weak logical fallacy - the ubiquitous straw man - is offered as evidence of what I want and how it would be useless.
> 
> My opinion is constantly being reinforced that the gun lovers on this message board, in mass, haven't the competence expected of a Middle School average student.
Click to expand...



Always amazes me how people so proud of their 'intellect' lack common sense.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's exactly what I mean, every six year old should be armed.  thank you for that contribution to the discussion.  Obviously our choices are that guns are banned for everyone or we arm every six year old.  And some people think you are just an idiot.  I'm on that list


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, this is the best you have ("I know you are but what am I").  You're pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that means that children never get a hold of guns and accidentally or intentionally shoot people with them in California?  Wow.
Click to expand...


Of course not.  Perfection is only something Wry demands of the other side, not his own


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
Click to expand...

Why does someone need to ride on the front of the bus?
Why does someone need to vote in every election?
Why does someone need to pray all the time?
No, the queston is why the government needs to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.  The answer is it does not.  Since no measure of gun control has proven effective in reducing crime the answer is to do away with it entirely.


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
Click to expand...


That is the point Wry missed.  Everyone followed his plan ... except the gunman.  Hence the title of the thread.  This is on him, not us


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I mean, every six year old should be armed.  thank you for that contribution to the discussion.  Obviously our choices are that guns are banned for everyone or we arm every six year old.  And some people think you are just an idiot.  I'm on that list
Click to expand...

Where do I sign up?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's right.
> We have had 100 years of experience with all kinds of gun control measures.  None of them has made anyone any safer.  All of them are total failures, unproven in preventing any attacks at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An 11 year old child received a D on his report card.  His stepfather told him if he got any D's or F's he would make him quit Little League Baseball.
> 
> The child begged the teacher to change the grade, she refused.
> 
> The child when home, took his stepfathers handgun from the night stand in his mother and Stepfather's bedroom.  He then went to his room and got his baseball jacket and then went to the living room, folded the jacket on his lap, put the gun in his mouth and died.
> 
> A trigger lock, a gun safe or an unloaded gun would have most likely prevented this horrible event.  One which impacted his teacher, the family (soon divorced), his team and coaches.
> 
> Rabbi(t) is full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that means that children never get a hold of guns and accidentally or intentionally shoot people with them in California?  Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A weak one, but a straw man still the same.  You're lack of education is showing once again Rabbi(t), as well as your biases and lack of empathy.  You are IMO a miserable being - there is nothing human about you.
Click to expand...


that's not a strawman, you set the standard of zero errors.  He just applied your own standard to you


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supporters of gun control are uniformly liberals. But not all liberals are in favor of gun control.  I realize that distinction might tax your brain.
> But look at the difference in reaction to the church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and the church in South Carolina. You'll probably have to google the New Life Church shootings because it was so under-reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many meetings occur in every church in America everyday, and twice or more on Sunday?  Pointing out a shooting where the crazed gunman was killed by a member of the church eight years ago is hardly convincing of anything beyond your desperate need to find some reason to attack efforts to reasonably mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> Advocating for more guns iin the hands of more people is insane.
Click to expand...

What was your point here?  That churches are safe except when they arent?  They there is an acceptable level of violence in churches?
My point is that a church shooting where innocents die is all over the media. 
A church shooting where only the shooter dies is quickly forgotten.
Liberals love dead victims.
They dont care about live heroes.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Yes, Europe fighting Russia over the Baltics with the US is a long shot, without us it's zero
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Russia were to invade the EU would have no choice.
> 
> The funny thing is you seem to think that only the US would go to war, or take that initiative. Maybe Europe isn't so big on the whole invading other countries simply because they can. But then again if, say, the Falkland Islands got invaded, do you think the British would wait for the Americans? They didn't last time it happened, the US didn't help much at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm against Iraq, dumb ass.  I'm also against nation building in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo and the rest of the wars started by both parties.  You know that if you have long term memory.
> 
> And "no choice?"  You mean like Ukraine who had a defense pact too so they had no choice?  LOL, you are completely clueless about European politics.  They couldn't agree on what kind of sandwich to have for lunch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your views on Iraq have got to do with anything here.....
> 
> I'm also not sure what trying a personal insult against me are. It's a quick way of losing a discussion with me.
> 
> As for European politics, are you the one who lives in Holland, and then believes you know everything about European politics because you've been there for a few months....? Jeez.
> 
> But your post is just twilight zone, you must have been in angry hour or something because it doesn't have much to do with anything.
Click to expand...


So you think fighting Argentina in the Falkland Islands is like fighting Russia?  Seriously?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
Click to expand...


Again, no one was defending themselves in Sandy Hook, you bought it, you own it.  Explain why Sandy Hook is acceptable losses for your policy


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
> 
> 
> 
> Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really take work to be an idiot?   I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are?  Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I have logic and reason to work with due to a social, hard work ethic; unlike the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tomatoes are blue in the September spring rolls
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can always tell when the Right is too lazy to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause; why should the left believe the lazy Right when they claim it is a "hard work" ethic that is important, when they are too lazy to work hard for their clues and their Causes.
> 
> And, I actually like spring rolls.
Click to expand...


Rockets in the blender are carnivorous ruby platform functions


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
Click to expand...


How do you get this delusion when mass shooting after mass shooting features no one shooting back that we rather than you are getting our way?  You are totally getting your way, now explain how all the dead bodies piling up under your system are worth it to you


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get this delusion when mass shooting after mass shooting features no one shooting back that we rather than you are getting our way?  You are totally getting your way, now explain how all the dead bodies piling up under your system are worth it to you
Click to expand...

The solution to any failure of a liberal policy is more of the same.
Welfare fails because we dont fund it enough
Social security fails because we dont spend enough on it
Education fails because we arent spending enough on it
Gun control fails because we arent doing it enough.


----------



## kaz

WillHaftawaite said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if it's locked, either with a trigger lock or in a safe, it's about as useful as a wet noodle at 2am when someone comes in thru the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lock your window and buy a dog, a dog is an early warning system and will give one time to grab their gun and kill someone.  It's very unlikely a child will find your gun at 0200 under your mattress or pillow, and one can remove the trigger lock when they brush their teeth before retiring for the night.  When at home and the gun is in their custody and control they are following the letter of the law.
> 
> How many times has someone entered your home in the middle of the night when you are home?  A  "Cat"  burglar is a rare bread of criminal, I doubt you honestly know of anyone whose occupied home has been entered in the middle of the night.  And, BTW, I support the 2nd in terms of responsible people protecting their home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you want to make their weapons all but useless.
Click to expand...


That's exactly his plan.  Make your gun unavailable outside your home and useless in it, then blame the dead bodies on us while his system was followed.  What hasn't been explained is his objective in killing all those people


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals certainly see them as the cost of tyranny.  The school was a gun-free zone.  Which means the law abiding citizens were unarmed while the criminal was armed.
> How'd that work out for everybody?
> But liberals are fine with dead victims.  It makes them feel so self righteous and empathetic.  They dont do well with live heroes, like Chris Kyle.  They feel bad for bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "liberals are fine with dead victims"?  Are you so stupid that you feel anyone but others like you  believe supporters of gun controls are all liberals, or any human being was fine with the horrific murders at Sandy Hook?
> 
> Of course you and the other gun lovers are distressed every time a mass murder takes place, not because innocent victims die, but because you will need to once again defend the insane gun policy which exists in our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supporters of gun control are uniformly liberals. But not all liberals are in favor of gun control.  I realize that distinction might tax your brain.
> But look at the difference in reaction to the church shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado and the church in South Carolina. You'll probably have to google the New Life Church shootings because it was so under-reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many meetings occur in every church in America everyday, and twice or more on Sunday?  Pointing out a shooting where the crazed gunman was killed by a member of the church eight years ago is hardly convincing of anything beyond your desperate need to find some reason to attack efforts to reasonably mitigate gun violence in America.
> 
> Advocating for more guns iin the hands of more people is insane.
Click to expand...


What is insane is your plan to advocate fewer guns in the hands of non-criminals while doing nothing about the guns in the hands of criminals.  Now that is insane


----------



## Wry Catcher

No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.  Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.  

Evidence? 

Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:

11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I mean, every six year old should be armed.  thank you for that contribution to the discussion.  Obviously our choices are that guns are banned for everyone or we arm every six year old.  And some people think you are just an idiot.  I'm on that list
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do I sign up?
Click to expand...


I'm keeping it, just added you


----------



## KissMy

Wry Catcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One anecdotal story proves what in your mind exactly?  Is that your standard for your own positions?  That one anecdotal story torpedoes your arguments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
Click to expand...


 "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.

No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.  Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post



There you go, the standard, you aren't convinced you have been proven wrong so you get your way.

The #1 proof you are wrong are all the violent crimes that are averted without a shooting.

Then there's the logic that government preventing you from defending yourself, your family and your property is an abomination to freedom.

The Constitution comes third, not first, the first two reasons are why it's there.

Not enough for you, is it?  Nothing would be enough for you


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.  Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post


Those "facts" are largely meaningless in this debate.  And they are contradictory.  They say, for instance, that a Harvard study shows more guns equals more murders.
And then they say we are getting safer as a society, despite there being more guns sold.
You understand that is contradictory, right?


----------



## Wry Catcher

KissMy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
Click to expand...


It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.

BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.


----------



## The Rabbi

KissMy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves one thing, it created my support for laws to require trigger locks and other means to secure guns in homes, a law passed in and in the CA penal code.  Something which would not occur to you and other callous conservatives devoid of empathy and something which gun lovers like you would oppose as an infringement on your rights.
> 
> It also makes gun owners criminally and civilly culpable, another thing for the NRA and its disciples to whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
Click to expand...

Why was Adam Lanza not supposed to have a gun?  As far as I know there was nothing in his record that would have prohibited him from buying one legally.
That is true for most of the notorious shooters, like the one in Aurora: they bought guns legally.  No background check in the world would have made them prohibited.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.  Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> Those "facts" are largely meaningless in this debate.  And they are contradictory.  They say, for instance, that a Harvard study shows more guns equals more murders.
> And then they say we are getting safer as a society, despite there being more guns sold.
> You understand that is contradictory, right?
Click to expand...



LOL, I understand you didn't think through you post.  Think about it, and try again.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.
> 
> BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.
Click to expand...

People call you an idiot probably because your posts indicate you are.  You insist on a 100% standard for pro gun solutions but excuse yourself from that standard yourself.  When faced with counterarguments you simply name call or deflect.  You post links that refute your own points.  And you consistently fail to address the question of this thread: what is your solution to criminals with guns?  Your solutions seem to be aimed at law abiding citizens with guns, not at criminals.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right?  I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, someone with a critical mind can also just read it and see it's a reason not a requirement, which is of course why liberals can't read it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course we can read; Only the Right is too lazy to work hard on their reading comprehension.  I guess a hard work ethic is just hearsay and soothsay for the lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they have village idiots in Canada?  I mean wow, that would take a serious idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too difficult to work hard to have anything more than fallacy, Person on the clueless and Causeless and Lazy Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it really take work to be an idiot?   I mean isn't that just something that you pretty much just are?  Or are you saying you actually put some work into your idiocy?
Click to expand...

He doesn't work at it at all. He's Liberal. He doesn't do "work".


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.
> 
> BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People call you an idiot probably because your posts indicate you are.  You insist on a 100% standard for pro gun solutions but excuse yourself from that standard yourself.  When faced with counterarguments you simply name call or deflect.  You post links that refute your own points.  And you consistently fail to address the question of this thread: what is your solution to criminals with guns?  Your solutions seem to be aimed at law abiding citizens with guns, not at criminals.
Click to expand...


Threads move past the OP all the time, and I have address the question in the OP several times.  It is a loaded question, that you won't or can't understand.

That you can't refute it is on you.  That you don't know what a loaded question is, and I've defined it several times, is enough evidence for me to conclude you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant.


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.  Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> Those "facts" are largely meaningless in this debate.  And they are contradictory.  They say, for instance, that a Harvard study shows more guns equals more murders.
> And then they say we are getting safer as a society, despite there being more guns sold.
> You understand that is contradictory, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, I understand you didn't think through you post.  Think about it, and try again.
Click to expand...

Deflection.  You understand that claiming society is getting safer, AND we have more guns contradicts the idea that more guns means more homicides.  Right?


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.
> 
> BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People call you an idiot probably because your posts indicate you are.  You insist on a 100% standard for pro gun solutions but excuse yourself from that standard yourself.  When faced with counterarguments you simply name call or deflect.  You post links that refute your own points.  And you consistently fail to address the question of this thread: what is your solution to criminals with guns?  Your solutions seem to be aimed at law abiding citizens with guns, not at criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threads move past the OP all the time, and I have address the question in the OP several times.  It is a loaded question, that you won't or can't understand.
> 
> That you can't refute it is on you.  That you don't know what a loaded question is, and I've defined it several times, is enough evidence for me to conclude you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

You dont refute a question, dumbshit. You answer it. And you have given an answer that has been refuted over and over.
I see you are acting to form and deflecting rather than engaging in any meaningful debate.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MaryL said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but...  You're going to have to a lot better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> De ja ju, Better than..what?  What standard  of perfection are you subscribing to?
Click to expand...

To be taken with any degree of seriousness...
You need to present an argument for gun control that is not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonestly.
You also need to demonstrate how you idea does not violate the protections of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> 417 pages and the following is proved:
> 
> The 2nd is NOT Sacrosanct
> Extreme gun lovers equate gun control as tyranny
> Only criminals will have guns, if any effort to mitigate gun violence becomes law
> Man is not free unless s/he is not armed at all times
> A trigger lock makes a gun as lethal as a wet noodle (not)
> M14 Shooter's skills to debate begin and end with spam
> 2aguy, Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and Zimmerman should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.


More nonsense from an anti-gun loon who knows he can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men and power issues, that is what this is really about. Guns are a phallic symbol. I have had men point a gun at me  and have bullets in my house. That is really why I want gun control. It isn't to much to ask if people don't threaten other people with firearms anymore. All these mass shootings like Sandy Hook or Aurora theater shootings, enough is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always enjoy the pompous opinions and judgmental attitudes of liberal city snobs who know nothing about guns other than what you see on TV and in the liberal media.  I'd tell the women I know who love guns that it's a phallic symbol, but they don't give a shit what you think either.
> 
> And here's the thing on your last sentence begging the question.  You already got your way in Sandy Hook and the Aurora theater.  Only the shooters had guns.  How'd that work out for your looking down your haughty nose self superior attitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose each 6 year old should have been armed, and the K teacher too?  Or maybe an armed guard in every classroom on every campus in every state?
> 
> No, you wouldn't want to pay for that; it's better in the mind and black heart of the callous conservative/gun lovers that the deaths at Sandy Hook were simply the cost of liberty and freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I mean, every six year old should be armed.  thank you for that contribution to the discussion.  Obviously our choices are that guns are banned for everyone or we arm every six year old.  And some people think you are just an idiot.  I'm on that list
Click to expand...



Please....he isn't "just" an idiot...he is a really big idiot......


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post


As you know, ignorance, willful or otherwise, stands firmly with you and your side.

"In most cases, the Mother Jones staff found, the killers had obtained their weapons legally"


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.
> 
> BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People call you an idiot probably because your posts indicate you are.  You insist on a 100% standard for pro gun solutions but excuse yourself from that standard yourself.  When faced with counterarguments you simply name call or deflect.  You post links that refute your own points.  And you consistently fail to address the question of this thread: what is your solution to criminals with guns?  Your solutions seem to be aimed at law abiding citizens with guns, not at criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threads move past the OP all the time, and I have address the question in the OP several times.  It is a loaded question, that you won't or can't understand.
> 
> That you can't refute it is on you.  That you don't know what a loaded question is, and I've defined it several times, is enough evidence for me to conclude you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...


You have not answered the question in my OP post several times.  You've confirmed my point, you're satisfied with disarming only non-criminals


----------



## 2aguy

The Rabbi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and make a firearm about as useful as a wet noodle for self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law provides paranoids to carry a loaded weapon within their home.  So it is legal to get up, put on your slippers and gun belt and have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was Adam Lanza not supposed to have a gun?  As far as I know there was nothing in his record that would have prohibited him from buying one legally.
> That is true for most of the notorious shooters, like the one in Aurora: they bought guns legally.  No background check in the world would have made them prohibited.
Click to expand...



You know...I was thinking that myself.   

All of the mass shooters either passed all the gun control laws, background checks, magazine limits, gun purchase limits per month......or they avoided them altogether, like the kids at columbine..........

They like to point to mass shootings because they can drag the dead in front of cameras......and because the press will not ask how their gun control laws did nothing to stop the shooter.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people have to leave home to work, shop, care for others or go to school. They need the ability protect themselves everywhere.
> 
> Guns & Ammo are not the problem, nutjobs are. Since neither party will allow a publicized list of nutjobs but democrats love to publicize gun owners list, nothing will change.
> 
> We need a registered nutjob list just like the registered sex offender list that can be accessed by smartphone so any citizen can make sure the person they know has a gun is competent & allowed to have it. This would have prevented Sandy Hook school shooting & many others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.
> 
> BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People call you an idiot probably because your posts indicate you are.  You insist on a 100% standard for pro gun solutions but excuse yourself from that standard yourself.  When faced with counterarguments you simply name call or deflect.  You post links that refute your own points.  And you consistently fail to address the question of this thread: what is your solution to criminals with guns?  Your solutions seem to be aimed at law abiding citizens with guns, not at criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threads move past the OP all the time, and I have address the question in the OP several times.  It is a loaded question, that you won't or can't understand.
> 
> That you can't refute it is on you.  That you don't know what a loaded question is, and I've defined it several times, is enough evidence for me to conclude you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...



You haven't addressed it at all.  Each one of your points has been shown to be useless to achieve the thing you say you want......


----------



## The Rabbi

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tyranny of the majority is your solution to gun violence in America.  I hate to use the term, but methinks such a plan would have appealed to Hermann Goring - putting a tracking bracelet on all mentally ill is squarely in the realm of Statists.
> 
> Why does someone need to take a gun wherever they go?  At this moment there are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets of San Francisco, New York and Dallas.  How many will need a gun today (2aguy believes 5,400 + unsworn citizens will use a gun for self defense today and everyday in the US this year).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "tyranny of the majority"  5% is not "tyranny of the majority" you frigging idiot.
> 
> No gun control can work unless citizens know who is not supposed to have them. Adam Lanza was not supposed to have a gun. How in the hell was people at the shooting range, neighbors, friends, family & others supposed to know he was not supposed to be practicing with, carrying or have access to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that so many of the gun lovers need to call anyone who disagrees with them and supports efforts to mitigate gun violence idiots.  Even some one who failed to graduate from high school must know such a response is at best childish.
> 
> BTW, there is a link attached to my post #4203.  If you have the ability to read and comprehend, and then offer a thoughtful rebuttal to the link, you will become the only gun lover to respond as an educated, non hysterical adult on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People call you an idiot probably because your posts indicate you are.  You insist on a 100% standard for pro gun solutions but excuse yourself from that standard yourself.  When faced with counterarguments you simply name call or deflect.  You post links that refute your own points.  And you consistently fail to address the question of this thread: what is your solution to criminals with guns?  Your solutions seem to be aimed at law abiding citizens with guns, not at criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Threads move past the OP all the time, and I have address the question in the OP several times.  It is a loaded question, that you won't or can't understand.
> 
> That you can't refute it is on you.  That you don't know what a loaded question is, and I've defined it several times, is enough evidence for me to conclude you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't addressed it at all.  Each one of your points has been shown to be useless to achieve the thing you say you want......
Click to expand...

His response is it must be your fault you dont understand why he's right.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 417 pages and the following is proved:



The 2nd is NOT Sacrosanct
Not.  That is a strawman you keep repeating.  No one but you said criminals can gave guns Constitutionally.  We keep saying you can remove the right to be armed like any other right, with due process.  Gun ownership is no more or less protected than other Constitutional rights, only you say otherwise.

You came into this discussion with liberal, city snob bigotry over gun owners.  You ran into a half dozen of us who are strong gun advocates, and the consistent discussion point was that all your bigotries were wrong.  Yet your bigotries cannot be taken from your cold dead fingers, you continue to cling to them.  You have done no learning here.  The more wrong you are, the more smug you are about it

Extreme gun lovers equate gun control as tyranny
Yes, like freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, etc.  Exactly the view and even the word, tyranny, used by the founding fathers when they wrote those

Only criminals will have guns, if any effort to mitigate gun violence becomes law
That's your goal

Man is not free unless s/he is not armed at all times
that was a product of when you were taking heroin during the debate, it was the voices in your head.  Let that one go

A trigger lock makes a gun as lethal as a wet noodle (not)
You willing to risk that with your life or your family's life on the line?  You probably are, some of us are not. 

M14 Shooter's skills to debate begin and end with spam
Puts him ahead of you.  For you, debate begins and ends with your failure to grasp anyone's opinion but your own

2aguy, Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and Zimmerman should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
OK?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.  Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Here's some, but the willfully ignorant will ignore the link below and/or dispute it based on its source.  Keep in mind the gun lovers fail to provide any evidence to support what they commonly believe:
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post




Your article is not loading for me, otherwise I would take each point apart...I'll try that later....



> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.



With each mass shooting we point out how your gun control laws that you push did nothing to stop the shooting. 

With the gun murder rate at 8,454 for 2013.....that many criminals got guns illegally, since most shooters are criminals with long criminal  histories and are not allowed to own or carry guns.

Statistics show the record on background checks......more law abiding citizens are stopped than criminals...since criminals still get their guns while law abiding citizens have to go through even more hassle to clear their name to get their background checks cleared.

We have gun control in this country and it can be very effective when it is used.....if you use a gun to commit a crime you get arrested and put in jail.  If you are a convicted criminal and are caught with a gun you are arrested and put in jail......that actually works, requires no licensing, registration or magazine limits....and it doesn't infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens and that is how all other crimes are handled.....

But for some reason you guys tell us...no...we just want criminals to not get guns....and then focus all of your attention on disarming law abiding citizens with laws that do just that...and do nothing to stop mass shooters or criminals.....


----------



## 2aguy

Here you go Wry catcher....this picture refutes all of your arguments.....

And I love posting it...it is priceless, and says a lot more than 1,000 words.....


----------



## 2aguy

*
 1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States. 

Mother Jones tracked and mapped shooting sprees over the three decades from 1982 to May of last year. They counted "at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii," they found.

A Congressional Research Service report published in 2013 counted 78 incidents over roughly the same period, in which 547 were killed. Definitions of mass shootings vary. 
*
78 mass shootings in 31 years =  2.5 a year....yes...that is rare.......


----------



## M14 Shooter

2aguy said:


> * 1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States. *
> 
> *Mother Jones tracked and mapped shooting sprees over the three decades from 1982 to May of last year. They counted "at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii," they found.*
> 
> *A Congressional Research Service report published in 2013 counted 78 incidents over roughly the same period, in which 547 were killed. Definitions of mass shootings vary. *
> 
> 78 mass shootings in 31 years =  2.5 a year....yes...that is rare.......


Under 18 deaths per year.
It's an epidemic.


----------



## 2aguy

*2. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall, but nearly a third of households still have a gun.*

Not true...reporting ownership to surveys is declining....but all indicators show an increase in gun ownership...especially among women and minorities....and over 12.8 million people now carry guns for self defense...

This is a new tactic...try to say no one is buying guns....so politicians...you don't have to fear passing more gun control laws...


----------



## 2aguy

11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post


----------



## 2aguy

11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> No one has proved that gun controls have not prevented violence.


You want more gun control; onus is on you to show that gun control prevents violence.


> Gun violence occurs everyday and most of the arguments against gun control are lies, or simply gun lovers parroting the lies of others.


This is, of course, a lie.
You and I both know that you have never had an effective counter to any of my arguments; you and I both know that I have illustrated how all of your arguments are based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## 2aguy

11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post

*3. Active shooter events have become more common in recent years.*

Not true.....that FBI report was flawed  and has been exposed as a flawed paper.....research shows that there hasn't been an increase and these incidents have stayed the same....


----------



## 2aguy

*4. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in the United States, six havehappened from 2007 onward.*

What is the point to this......less than one per year....and these guys are getting smarter, learning from each other and targeting gun free zones still..........


----------



## 2aguy

* 5. America is an unusually violent country. But we're not as violent as we used to be.*

In fact...as more Americans have owned guns and now carry guns, over 12.8 million people now, gun murder has gone down, not up.....

Which shows you guys were wrong.....each time a state tried to pass concealed or open carry, you whined that there would be blood in the streets and more gun crime....

You were wrong...completely wrong.....guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do not increase crime....they lower it.


----------



## 2aguy

* 6. The South is the most violent region in the United States.*

Could that be because we share a border with a violent, corrupt Country that has violent drug cartels infiltrating our southern border....and I would like to see how they compute that.....since gun grabbers lie all the time.....


----------



## 2aguy

*7. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
*
This one is particularly stupid...

1) they quote the study by the gun control hack hemenway....

2)  They just stated in # 5 that violence is going down....and we know that more Americans own and carry guns than ever before....the gun murder rate is going down, according to the FBI, the CDC......

So how in the fuck can they say that more guns mean more homicides?


----------



## 2aguy

*8. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.*

Then how do you explain cities with the strictest gun control laws having the highest crime and gun murder rates?

And the criteria they use...1) assault weapon ban, 2) trigger locks 3) safe storage of guns...

Are they fucking stupid.....more people are killed with knives and hands and feet than rifles of any kind, and "Assault rifles" kill far fewer than that......and how exactly do trigger locks and safe storage laws stop criminals from using them to commit crimes....

And of course, the most violent cities in the country...are all controlled by democrats...and have the strictest gun control laws...Chicago, D.C., Baltimore, New York, which will be increasing, and is since they ended stop and frisk....look at the cities with the most gun crime.....they have the strictest gun control....and have horrible police policies.


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 417 pages and the following is proved:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd is NOT Sacrosanct
> Not.  That is a strawman you keep repeating.  No one but you said criminals can gave guns Constitutionally.  We keep saying you can remove the right to be armed like any other right, with due process.  Gun ownership is no more or less protected than other Constitutional rights, only you say otherwise.
> 
> You came into this discussion with liberal, city snob bigotry over gun owners.  You ran into a half dozen of us who are strong gun advocates, and the consistent discussion point was that all your bigotries were wrong.  Yet your bigotries cannot be taken from your cold dead fingers, you continue to cling to them.  You have done no learning here.  The more wrong you are, the more smug you are about it
> 
> Extreme gun lovers equate gun control as tyranny
> Yes, like freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, etc.  Exactly the view and even the word, tyranny, used by the founding fathers when they wrote those
> 
> Only criminals will have guns, if any effort to mitigate gun violence becomes law
> That's your goal
> 
> Man is not free unless s/he is not armed at all times
> that was a product of when you were taking heroin during the debate, it was the voices in your head.  Let that one go
> 
> A trigger lock makes a gun as lethal as a wet noodle (not)
> You willing to risk that with your life or your family's life on the line?  You probably are, some of us are not.
> 
> M14 Shooter's skills to debate begin and end with spam
> Puts him ahead of you.  For you, debate begins and ends with your failure to grasp anyone's opinion but your own
> 
> 2aguy, Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and Zimmerman should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> OK?
Click to expand...

Idiot doesnt get that I'm an FFL.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post
> 
> *3. Active shooter events have become more common in recent years.*
> 
> Not true.....that FBI report was flawed  and has been exposed as a flawed paper.....research shows that there hasn't been an increase and these incidents have stayed the same....



Your evidence is missing and less than convincing, much like everyone of your posts.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post
> 
> *3. Active shooter events have become more common in recent years.*
> 
> Not true.....that FBI report was flawed  and has been exposed as a flawed paper.....research shows that there hasn't been an increase and these incidents have stayed the same....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence is missing and less than convincing, much like everyone of your posts.
Click to expand...



Yeah...wrong again...

FBI figures tweaked to show phony increase in mass shootings report says Fox News

"The FBI put out a clearly incorrect set of numbers on public shootings shortly before the November election last year,” said Lott, a frequent opinion writer for FoxNews.com and author of "More Guns, Less Crime." “I have been reading FBI reports for 30 years and I have never seen anything like this.It is one thing for the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the National Institute of Justice to put out politically biased studies, but there has always been a Chinese wall separating the FBI raw data collection from political pressures.”

yes...the administration that used the IRS and other agencies to target political opponents, and sold guns to Mexican drug cartels....would never stoop to making a fake report to push gun control.....


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Your evidence is missing and less than convincing, much like everyone of your posts.


Oh, the irony....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - The Washington Post
> 
> *3. Active shooter events have become more common in recent years.*
> 
> Not true.....that FBI report was flawed  and has been exposed as a flawed paper.....research shows that there hasn't been an increase and these incidents have stayed the same....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence is missing and less than convincing, much like everyone of your posts.
Click to expand...



And here is USA today showing the study was stupid...and political...

USA TODAY research reveals flaws in mass-killing data


To get a more accurate count, USA TODAY began with 156 such incidents reported to the FBI from 2006-11. *But after investigating each one and finding others missing, USA TODAY found the FBI data had an accuracy rate of just 61%, throwing doubt on conclusions that might be drawn from analyzing it.*

For example, a mass killing in Samson and Kinston, Ala., in 2009 is not included in the FBI data. In that case, a man killed his mother, set her body on fire, then killed nine other people before he committed suicide at his former workplace.

In another incident, the FBI data included the deaths of two adults and three children in a Cleveland suburb in 2009, shot to death by a 28-year-old man. There was a drive-by shooting at that date and time, but no one was killed.

The FBI's data, known as the Supplemental Homicide Report, is considered the primary list of U.S. homicides by law enforcement agencies and academics studying violence. Most of the problem, researchers say, is because of mistakes made by the local police agencies who voluntarily submit their reports to the FBI.

The FBI acknowledges the data is flawed. In an effort to improve it, the FBI will start making downloads available directly from its website starting in 2014, said FBI spokesman Stephen G. Fischer Jr.

So again...you were wrong....


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 417 pages and the following is proved:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd is NOT Sacrosanct
> Not.  That is a strawman you keep repeating.  No one but you said criminals can gave guns Constitutionally.  We keep saying you can remove the right to be armed like any other right, with due process.  Gun ownership is no more or less protected than other Constitutional rights, only you say otherwise.
> 
> You came into this discussion with liberal, city snob bigotry over gun owners.  You ran into a half dozen of us who are strong gun advocates, and the consistent discussion point was that all your bigotries were wrong.  Yet your bigotries cannot be taken from your cold dead fingers, you continue to cling to them.  You have done no learning here.  The more wrong you are, the more smug you are about it
> 
> Extreme gun lovers equate gun control as tyranny
> Yes, like freedom of speech, the right to a jury trial, etc.  Exactly the view and even the word, tyranny, used by the founding fathers when they wrote those
> 
> Only criminals will have guns, if any effort to mitigate gun violence becomes law
> That's your goal
> 
> Man is not free unless s/he is not armed at all times
> that was a product of when you were taking heroin during the debate, it was the voices in your head.  Let that one go
> 
> A trigger lock makes a gun as lethal as a wet noodle (not)
> You willing to risk that with your life or your family's life on the line?  You probably are, some of us are not.
> 
> M14 Shooter's skills to debate begin and end with spam
> Puts him ahead of you.  For you, debate begins and ends with your failure to grasp anyone's opinion but your own
> 
> 2aguy, Rabbi(t), M14 Shooter and Zimmerman should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> OK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot doesnt get that I'm an FFL.
Click to expand...


FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?


^^
Continued proof of ignorance.


----------



## The Rabbi

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
Click to expand...

No, I disagree.
Ignorant, you can educate.
Crazy, you can medicate.
You can't fix stupid.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
Click to expand...


Informed guesses.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informed guesses.
Click to expand...


So I'm curious, do you think you've argued your case well?  Arguments like when we point out no one was armed at Sandy Hook and you come back with we want "every 6 year old armed" and when we say due process of law can remove gun ownership rights and you keep informing us we want criminals to have guns.  Do those arguments actually sound good to you?

So, my hometown is Kalamazoo, Michigan, which is where "kaz" comes from.   I call it my me town because I was born there.  LOL.  I know that confuses Democrats.

So growing up there I had a lot of exposure to both city and country, it's a decent size down, but not huge so pretty much you left the city and it was country.  I had actual experience with "gun cultures" rather than you watching the liberal media demogogue them.  BTW, they had toasters too and they don't think of themselves as a "gun" culture any more than a "toaster" culture.  They are just part of life.  And they are overwhelmingly very responsible and take guns and gun safety very seriously.  

The reason liberals are so ignorant is that even with the opportunity to ask us questions and get to know us like here, you endlessly tell us what we think, and you continue to do that no matter how many times you are told no, we don't think that.  It's actually pretty funny how you then consider yourself the open minded one


----------



## danielpalos

Ending Prohibition should end much of the gun violence associated with it.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Ending Prohibition should end much of the gun violence associated with it.



Prohibition ended in the 30s, which is the temperature where I am in Europe these days, it's very pleasant


----------



## The Rabbi

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informed guesses.
Click to expand...

LOL.  No wonder you consider that "informed."  Hint: Google is your friend.


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informed guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm curious, do you think you've argued your case well?  Arguments like when we point out no one was armed at Sandy Hook and you come back with we want "every 6 year old armed" and when we say due process of law can remove gun ownership rights and you keep informing us we want criminals to have guns.  Do those arguments actually sound good to you?
> 
> So, my hometown is Kalamazoo, Michigan, which is where "kaz" comes from.   I call it my me town because I was born there.  LOL.  I know that confuses Democrats.
> 
> So growing up there I had a lot of exposure to both city and country, it's a decent size down, but not huge so pretty much you left the city and it was country.  I had actual experience with "gun cultures" rather than you watching the liberal media demogogue them.  BTW, they had toasters too and they don't think of themselves as a "gun" culture any more than a "toaster" culture.  They are just part of life.  And they are overwhelmingly very responsible and take guns and gun safety very seriously.
> 
> The reason liberals are so ignorant is that even with the opportunity to ask us questions and get to know us like here, you endlessly tell us what we think, and you continue to do that no matter how many times you are told no, we don't think that.  It's actually pretty funny how you then consider yourself the open minded one
Click to expand...

They have no idea what gun culture looks like because their knowledge of guns comes from TV and movies.  They cant imagine why anyone would want one unless they were a criminal.


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ending Prohibition should end much of the gun violence associated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition ended in the 30s, which is the temperature where I am in Europe these days, it's very pleasant
Click to expand...

Do you want the other half of my burger?


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ending Prohibition should end much of the gun violence associated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition ended in the 30s, which is the temperature where I am in Europe these days, it's very pleasant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want the other half of my burger?
Click to expand...


Veggie burger?  Other than fish and seafood I don't eat meat


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ending Prohibition should end much of the gun violence associated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition ended in the 30s, which is the temperature where I am in Europe these days, it's very pleasant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want the other half of my burger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Veggie burger?  Other than fish and seafood I don't eat meat
Click to expand...

Thats a shame.  A nice hamburger on a bun with a cold beer is one of life's great  pleasures.  But to each his own.
Is that an ethics based decision, a health based one, or somethng else?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Informed guesses.
Click to expand...

That can only mean you are wrong on purpose.
What a surprise.


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ending Prohibition should end much of the gun violence associated with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition ended in the 30s, which is the temperature where I am in Europe these days, it's very pleasant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want the other half of my burger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Veggie burger?  Other than fish and seafood I don't eat meat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats a shame.  A nice hamburger on a bun with a cold beer is one of life's great  pleasures.  But to each his own.
> Is that an ethics based decision, a health based one, or somethng else?
Click to expand...


Something else. I have spent my career in management and management consulting.  I was in New York and just felt bloated, was working a tough project and not getting exercise.  I just felt so full yet hungry at the same time, I went to an Indian restaurant and had a vegetarian meal, haven't had meat other than fish/seafood since.  I just did, there is no justification for it.  I love vegetarian food  anyway and I won't ever quit eating fish and seafood.  I don't eat them every meal or even every day


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FFL?  Fully Flagrant Lunatic?  Fearful Fascist Lunkhead?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> Continued proof of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Informed guesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That can only mean you are wrong on purpose.
> What a surprise.
Click to expand...


Wry doesn't care, he's on a team.  He wants to win.  I don't get treating your political party like a football team, it actually effects our lives.  But it is what it is


----------



## danielpalos

Here is the plan, at least one on the federal left is going to advance at any opportunity;

Our war on crime is a simple waste of the (other) Peoples' tax monies merely to favor capitalists who can afford to invest in State sponsored ventures in the private sector, due merely to legislative fiat rather than more faithful execution of our own laws.

A well regulated militia to ensure the security of a free State is a State's right secured by our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  

For police power purposes short of calling forth the militia, posse comitatus is the law of the land in most if not all States in our Republic; especially for juridical Persons considered specifically unconnected with militia service well regulated.  Thus:  S_ubject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._

Therefore; the judicature may better ensure the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States; and the betterment of our aqueducts and our roads; through Judicial forms of discretion regarding gun lovers who may present themselves for being infidel, protestant, or renegade and repugnant to that with is expressed as Good and not Bad for the People in our supreme laws of the land. 

Gun lovers then presenting themselves for posse duty may help that branch of Government and potentially provide for a "select militia" in case of a general exigency.


----------



## kaz

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?



I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.

We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
Click to expand...

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.


----------



## sealybobo

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


Regulate better how gun manufacturers mass produce and flood the market with guns year after year after year.

Don't you have enough guns?

Make handguns more expensive. Semi automatics should cost $10,000.

Shotguns and hunting guns are OK.

They tax people differently on a second 3rd and 4th home. Make one gun cheap but the second one more expensive and they must be registered.

Make bullets really expensive. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
Click to expand...

Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> 
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.
Click to expand...


Right, again, you penalize law abiding citizens.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Explain how you buy an illegal pass through a red light.   Not a student of physics, are you?

So why doesn't your plan work for pot?  Remember, that was the point of my OP post?  We actually make pot outright illegal, we do all the things you suggest and more.  Yet any zit faced 16 year old can buy all the pot they want.

Also, why doesn't your plan work for guns?  We do all that now yet criminals have no problem getting guns?  Why is it that more of a plan that doesn't work is going to work?

I anticipate your continued non-answer to these straight forward questions


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?
Click to expand...

merely capital under any form of capitalism.


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> merely capital under any form of capitalism.
Click to expand...

Huh? Is that really your reply to my question? I'll consider that a win. I stumped your fucking ass. Answer the question! I'll answer for you fuctard. Criminals don't get their hands on rpg's because Smith and Wesson don't mass produce them so they never make it onto the black market.

I work for a manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 3 weeks to get a part. Serial numbers are used so we know exactly who has what. Guns are much more dangerous yet we are loosy goosey about them? Smith and Wesson love it this way. The NRA and gun nuts. Americans are insane!


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Regulate better how gun manufacturers mass produce and flood the market with guns year after year after year.
Click to expand...

They sell these guns to governments and law abiding citizens -- how does reducing the numbers of guns sold to governments and law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from getting guns?


> Make handguns more expensive. Semi automatics should cost $10,000.


As should abortions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, you dd not address my questions.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> merely capital under any form of capitalism.
Click to expand...


Black market capitalism works fine for them.  They get the guns


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> Regulate better how gun manufacturers mass produce and flood the market with guns year after year after year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They sell these guns to governments and law abiding citizens -- how does reducing the numbers of guns sold to governments and law-abiding citizens prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> 
> 
> Make handguns more expensive. Semi automatics should cost $10,000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As should abortions.
Click to expand...


Exactly, exposing another blatant hypocrisy of the left.  Making abortions cost $10K is actually more Constitutional than making guns cost that since guns are actually Constitutionally protected


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> merely capital under any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Is that really your reply to my question? I'll consider that a win. I stumped your fucking ass. Answer the question! I'll answer for you fuctard. Criminals don't get their hands on rpg's because Smith and Wesson don't mass produce them so they never make it onto the black market.
> 
> I work for a manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 3 weeks to get a part. Serial numbers are used so we know exactly who has what. Guns are much more dangerous yet we are loosy goosey about them? Smith and Wesson love it this way. The NRA and gun nuts. Americans are insane!
Click to expand...

not at all; the laws of supply and demand work regardless of market depending on perceived need or want.  only Bad capitalists don't know that


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> 
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you go by a granade launcher or rpg? What stops the criminals from getting their hands on those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> merely capital under any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? Is that really your reply to my question? I'll consider that a win. I stumped your fucking ass. Answer the question! I'll answer for you fuctard. Criminals don't get their hands on rpg's because Smith and Wesson don't mass produce them so they never make it onto the black market.
> 
> I work for a manufacturer. Sometimes it takes 3 weeks to get a part. Serial numbers are used so we know exactly who has what. Guns are much more dangerous yet we are loosy goosey about them? Smith and Wesson love it this way. The NRA and gun nuts. Americans are insane!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all; the laws of supply and demand work regardless of market depending on perceived need or want.  only Bad capitalists don't know that
Click to expand...


Notice you started with "not at all," then you didn't contradict what I said


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
Click to expand...


*Arms, are weapons of war*

yes the ones mentioned in the 2nd amendment


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> 
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.
Click to expand...


So Wry, maybe one time in all your posts on the thread you could address my actual point in the OP post.  Pot is actually illegal in most of the country.   It's against the law, period.  Yet high schoolers, not even criminals can get all the pot they want.

How can gun laws possibly work?  There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  Drugs travel easily across the border, guns can follow the same routes.  When pot laws work to a degree they just drive up the prices and the drug lords work all the harder to get the money.  And the pot buyers I am discussing are teens, not even criminals with criminal networks.

How can you possibly believe gun laws will work on criminals?  So then, how can you not believe you are only restricting the rights of people to protect themselves from criminals?  As evidenced by mass shootings one after another happen in ... gun ... free ... zones.

You keep mocking the right for denying what you believe is science with global warming, you mock the religious right for not believing in evolution.  Yet you deny basic, obvious evidence with guns that all contradicts your argument.  Whats up with that?


----------



## jon_berzerk

*They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon,*

 a neat thing to think about 

the 2nd amendment can be fiddled with and has limits and  congress can make rules 

in regards to the 2nd 

but that cant happen with the 14th amendment 

why is that


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
Click to expand...


So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> 
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Wry, maybe one time in all your posts on the thread you could address my actual point in the OP post.  Pot is actually illegal in most of the country.   It's against the law, period.  Yet high schoolers, not even criminals can get all the pot they want.
> 
> How can gun laws possibly work?  There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  Drugs travel easily across the border, guns can follow the same routes.  When pot laws work to a degree they just drive up the prices and the drug lords work all the harder to get the money.  And the pot buyers I am discussing are teens, not even criminals with criminal networks.
> 
> How can you possibly believe gun laws will work on criminals?  So then, how can you not believe you are only restricting the rights of people to protect themselves from criminals?  As evidenced by mass shootings one after another happen in ... gun ... free ... zones.
> 
> You keep mocking the right for denying what you believe is science with global warming, you mock the religious right for not believing in abortion.  Yet you deny basic, obvious evidence with guns that all contradicts your argument.  Whats up with that?
Click to expand...



The war on drugs is a failure.  We are doing the same things today we have been doing for decades with few positive results. Thus your comparison has merit, IMO both drugs and guns need to  be controlled,  but how is the question.
Pot (MJ) must be dropped from schedule I and each state should have the right to regulate or outlaw it
Thus, each state could have the right to regulate gun ownership or allow any citizen of their state to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.  That would be a great test of the merits or demerits of universal gun ownership.
Climate Change is in effect, only a fool believes otherwise.  That statement does not suggest that climate change is exclusively a product of human behavior.  However, we see how the Internal Combustion Engine created SMOG and how the use of catalytic converters has mitigated that weather anomaly - our air is cleaner.
Abortion is about the right of women to make bodily decisions.  Pregnancy can be mostly prevented by education (age appropriate in the public schools) and freely provided contraceptives.  Pregnancy is also a means use by an abuser to control his spouse, a pregnant women will stay with an abuser when they have no means of support when pregnant and after she has given birth.  Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack.
I mock the religious right for hypocrisy.  Denial of contraceptives and opposition to abortion is oppressive and a tactic used by authoritarians.  Few like the idea of abortion, but those opposed to abortion and oppose my points in #5 deserve to be mocked.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
Click to expand...


That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
Click to expand...


Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."

My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

Let's review the 10th A:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A clear statement, correct?

Why didn't Heller discuss the 10th? It took a whole lot of spin to incorporate McDonald v. Chicago, and another 5-4 decision, to protect gun owners from the efforts of city, county and state representatives to pass even benign laws to control guns.

IMO it is a fundamental imperative for local government to make the jurisdiction under their watch safe and secure.  Some will argue that means more guns, others believe some restrictions are necessary to accomplish the same goal.

The former will argue that tens of thousand or more times a gun is used in defense and not fired; the facts prove guns are used everyday to commit acts of murder, murder suicide, suicide, robbery and the accidental injury or death of adults and children.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.


Translation:
You know you do not have a sound response to the questions put to you.
As per the norm.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?


The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way;  like all anti-gun loons, you argue  from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> 
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Wry, maybe one time in all your posts on the thread you could address my actual point in the OP post.  Pot is actually illegal in most of the country.   It's against the law, period.  Yet high schoolers, not even criminals can get all the pot they want.
> 
> How can gun laws possibly work?  There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  Drugs travel easily across the border, guns can follow the same routes.  When pot laws work to a degree they just drive up the prices and the drug lords work all the harder to get the money.  And the pot buyers I am discussing are teens, not even criminals with criminal networks.
> 
> How can you possibly believe gun laws will work on criminals?  So then, how can you not believe you are only restricting the rights of people to protect themselves from criminals?  As evidenced by mass shootings one after another happen in ... gun ... free ... zones.
> 
> You keep mocking the right for denying what you believe is science with global warming, you mock the religious right for not believing in abortion.  Yet you deny basic, obvious evidence with guns that all contradicts your argument.  Whats up with that?
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> 1. The war on drugs is a failure.  We are doing the same things today we have been doing for decades with few positive results. Thus your comparison has merit, IMO both drugs and guns need to  be controlled,  but how is the question.
> 2. Pot (MJ) must be dropped from schedule I and each state should have the right to regulate or outlaw it
> 3. Thus, each state could have the right to regulate gun ownership or allow any citizen of their state to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.  That would be a great test of the merits or demerits of universal gun ownership


Well, I think neither drugs nor guns should be "controlled" but I support liberty, not a State with ubiquitous power, but that's a matter of opinion.  No where in there am I seeing a single idea on how you are going to keep pot from teenagers or guns from criminals.  What is it you think you just addressed exactly?



Wry Catcher said:


> Climate Change is in effect, only a fool believes otherwise.  That statement does not suggest that climate change is exclusively a product of human behavior.  However, we see how the Internal Combustion Engine created SMOG and how the use of catalytic converters has mitigated that weather anomaly - our air is cleaner


Whether the climate is warming, whether it's part of a cycle, whether it's man made, nothing is established scientific fact.  But my point was that you think the right isn't following basic logic and yet you have still no idea how to control pot or guns.  The consequence of the State trying to control them is clear and it's bad.


Wry Catcher said:


> Abortion is about the right of women to make bodily decisions.  Pregnancy can be mostly prevented by education (age appropriate in the public schools) and freely provided contraceptives.  Pregnancy is also a means use by an abuser to control his spouse, a pregnant women will stay with an abuser when they have no means of support when pregnant and after she has given birth.  Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack.




I meant evolution in this one, sorry.  I fixed it but you'd already quoted it.





Wry Catcher said:


> I mock the religious right for hypocrisy.  Denial of contraceptives and opposition to abortion is oppressive and a tactic used by authoritarians.  Few like the idea of abortion, but those opposed to abortion and oppose my points in #5 deserve to be mocked.



My point is that you think you are logical with global warming and climate change, but you can't face that you have no actual plan to control guns.  And that doesn't change even when shooting after shooting is in a so called gun free zone.  The only ones who were gun free were the law abiding victims.  Which is my point


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.
> 
> I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.
Click to expand...


They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution.  And yes, times have changed.  Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself.  What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed.  Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all.  The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> 
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> Let's review the 10th A:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> A clear statement, correct?
> 
> Why didn't Heller discuss the 10th? It took a whole lot of spin to incorporate McDonald v. Chicago, and another 5-4 decision, to protect gun owners from the efforts of city, county and state representatives to pass even benign laws to control guns.
> 
> IMO it is a fundamental imperative for local government to make the jurisdiction under their watch safe and secure.  Some will argue that means more guns, others believe some restrictions are necessary to accomplish the same goal.
> 
> The former will argue that tens of thousand or more times a gun is used in defense and not fired; the facts prove guns are used everyday to commit acts of murder, murder suicide, suicide, robbery and the accidental injury or death of adults and children.
Click to expand...


You realize the 14th extended the bill of rights to apply to State governments as well, no?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
> You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
> Either way;  like all anti-gun loons, you argue  from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:  

Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.

 Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
> You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
> Either way;  like all anti-gun loons, you argue  from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:
> 
> Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.
> 
> Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.
Click to expand...


The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government powers, and you're arguing there is no restriction, government can do anything.  So why did they bother putting it there?  You OK with rights like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures requiring you apply to government for permission, pay a fee and they get to decide if you get the right or not?  We are not treating gun rights differently from other rights, you are


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> 
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.
> 
> I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution.  And yes, times have changed.  Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself.  What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed.  Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all.  The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty
Click to expand...


What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?  Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?

You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.

Start with Marbury v. Madison.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
> You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
> Either way;  like all anti-gun loons, you argue  from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:
> 
> Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.
> 
> Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government powers, and you're arguing there is no restriction, government can do anything.  So why did they bother putting it there?  You OK with rights like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures requiring you apply to government for permission, pay a fee and they get to decide if you get the right or not?  We are not treating gun rights differently from other rights, you are
Click to expand...


First sentence:  Straw Man Fallacy

The Second was put in there do to the *Realpolitik* of the time.

Your third sentence runs on, in pieces:

a.  Free Speech has limits
b.  A search can be legal without a warrant as can a seizure
c.  Pay a fee for a license, BFD
d.  You and others are treating the Second as sacrosanct, which has been proven to be false.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The first stop in problem solving is to identify the problem.

Kaz, M14 and et al,  don't see a problem, that is the basic difference between them and those of us disturbed by mass murders, road rage shootings and other violent acts committed by people with a gun.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
Click to expand...



Okay dipstick.....again, tell me what forcing people to get a license would do that we can't already do without the license?  Not one of you anti gun extremists have been able to tell me what the license does, why it is needed and how it would stop crime or mass shootings.

Considering the fact that armed citizens have already been in those situations and shown that law abiding people are responsible even in the worst situations,  The Klackamas mall shooting, the Gabby Giffords Shooting, the Pear Mississipi shooting, The Smokey Mountain law school shooting.....all had armed citizens who used their guns to stop the attacker or who decided they did not need to shoot.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about so you talk out of your asses on this subject.  Do some research instead of just "feeling" what you think should happen.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
Click to expand...




> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.



We have all the gun laws that we need.  This guy went through your background check and passed it.  If he was still alive he would have been arrested and put in jail.....done and done.

What you want wry, is an office of Pre Crime, where you send in Tom Cruise to stop the gun crime before it happens....sadly, we don't have 3 precognitives to allow you to do that.  So, gun crime is treated like all the other crimes in the world, we have laws against murder, and when someone murders someone we arrest them and lock them up.  Dittos drunk driving, stealing and rape.

You mention the limits on the First Amendment.....those limits happen AFTER you break the laws.  You do not have to get a license to speak, you do not have to get a license to talk in a crowded theater, but if you yell fire in the theater you can be arrested.

You do not have to get a license to prove you will not slander or libel another person.  If you slander or libel someone you can be taken to court and sued......AFTER, you have slandered or libeled them.....

Dittos with the 2nd Amendment....when you commit a crime with a gun you can be arrested on the spot.  There is no need for a license or to register anyone's gun.  You can already be arrested as soon as you break the law with the gun.

If you are a felon, you cannot own or carry a gun or have one in your possession.  You can already be arrested it you are caught with a gun, no license is needed to do this, they are already prohibited from the gun.  No need to register the gun, because they can't have the gun in the first place.

There is no need to license owners or register guns.

You still can't show why they are necessary, useful or productive.

Still waiting for that explanation.

The recent shooter.  He would have got a license, he would have registered his gun, he passed a background check, and the he bought the gun 2 months before the shooting.....so not one of your laws that you want would have stopped this shooting.

Dittos criminals, they steal guns or get a straw purchaser to buy the gun......your gun laws would not stop this.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.
> 
> I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution.  And yes, times have changed.  Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself.  What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed.  Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all.  The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?  Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?
> 
> You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.
> 
> Start with Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...


Guns actually aren't that hard, especially at close range.  You aim, fire.  BTW, most of the attackers weren't trained either.  And seriously, you're safer if the bad guy has a gun and you don't?  That's nuts.

If you want to learn to use a gun properly and safely, your NRA would be a wonderful place for you to go.

You still have given zero in terms of specifics of how you would keep pot away from teenagers or guns away from criminals.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
> You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
> Either way;  like all anti-gun loons, you argue  from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:
> 
> Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.
> 
> Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government powers, and you're arguing there is no restriction, government can do anything.  So why did they bother putting it there?  You OK with rights like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures requiring you apply to government for permission, pay a fee and they get to decide if you get the right or not?  We are not treating gun rights differently from other rights, you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First sentence:  Straw Man Fallacy
> 
> The Second was put in there do to the *Realpolitik* of the time.
> 
> Your third sentence runs on, in pieces:
> 
> a.  Free Speech has limits
> b.  A search can be legal without a warrant as can a seizure
> c.  Pay a fee for a license, BFD
> d.  You and others are treating the Second as sacrosanct, which has been proven to be false.
Click to expand...




That the Bill of Rights was created to limit government powers is a ... straw man?  Wow, your knowledge of history is flat line


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.
> 
> I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution.  And yes, times have changed.  Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself.  What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed.  Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all.  The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?  Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?
> 
> You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.
> 
> Start with Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...




> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?



Because they have prevented other shootings because law abiding people were on the scene with guns.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.
> 
> I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution.  And yes, times have changed.  Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself.  What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed.  Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all.  The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?  Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?
> 
> You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.
> 
> Start with Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...




> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?



Normal, law abiding people with guns save lives in mass shooting situations when they are actually on the scene....

From church shootings, we have churches that were gun freezones, and churches that allowed people to have guns.....the deaths in gun free zones were way higher, the deaths in churches that allowed people to carry guns way lower.......

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
*No guns: 15 dead*

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


*Parishioners with guns:  2 dead*

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> David_42
> 
> So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it?  How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids?  We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them.  You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bite.  The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
> We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> 
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> Let's review the 10th A:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
> 
> A clear statement, correct?
> 
> Why didn't Heller discuss the 10th? It took a whole lot of spin to incorporate McDonald v. Chicago, and another 5-4 decision, to protect gun owners from the efforts of city, county and state representatives to pass even benign laws to control guns.
> 
> IMO it is a fundamental imperative for local government to make the jurisdiction under their watch safe and secure.  Some will argue that means more guns, others believe some restrictions are necessary to accomplish the same goal.
> 
> The former will argue that tens of thousand or more times a gun is used in defense and not fired; the facts prove guns are used everyday to commit acts of murder, murder suicide, suicide, robbery and the accidental injury or death of adults and children.
Click to expand...



The facts show that guns stop crime and save lives far more than they are used to commit crime and murder people.  You don't have facts you have feelings and wishes....none of which are true or accurate.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
> How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun  - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
> How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
> Oh wait,...   there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.
> 
> For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.
> 
> Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.
> 
> Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, _will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, _which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.
> 
> Arms, are weapons of war.  They are not universally sold in every form and to all people.  A license is required to own a fully automatic   weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc.  It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.
> 
> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.
> 
> [ See:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]
> 
> The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense.  Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his _work_.
> 
> Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.
> 
> So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then, this is now.  Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.
> 
> I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts.  I tend to think it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.  They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution.  And yes, times have changed.  Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself.  What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed.  Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all.  The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?  Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?
> 
> You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.
> 
> Start with Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...




> Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?



Another time when an armed citizen did the right thing......


Mother Jones: Fewer Deaths Per Mass Shooting in U.S. Versus Attacks Abroad - Breitbart

Sadly, the _Mother Jones_ piece does not mention the state-by-state implementation of concealed carry laws that began sweeping across nation in the late 1980s/early 1990s—right in the middle of the time frame Lankford studied. Concealed carry is now legal in every state. This fact, long under-reported, has contributed to the quick demise of more than one would-be mass shooting in the recent past.

Consider the Clackamas Town Center attack on December 11, 2012—an attack in which alleged gunman Jacob Roberts opened fire on shoppers, killing two. That attack, which could have been far worse, ended when Roberts noticed that carry permit holder Nick Meli was raising his Glock and was preparing to fire. KGW reported that while Meli never pulled the trigger, Roberts ended his alleged attack by taking his own life rather than shoot at another innocent.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
> My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
> You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
> Either way;  like all anti-gun loons, you argue  from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:
Click to expand...

And thus, you admit you spoke out of ignorance.   As I said.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.


It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
How do you prevent their access?


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
> How do you prevent their access?
Click to expand...


Since one thing criminals do is follow the law, why don't we make murder illegal?  Hmm...it already is.  So why are gun laws going to work again?

LOL, Wry is running dry


----------



## Lakhota

I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.



You've never met a gun owner, have you?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working.  That is THE PROBLEM in need of a solution, and they don't give a damn.  It's all about their Rights as members of the, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" crowd.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working





I don't realize gun laws are not working?  Um ... you didn't read the OP post ... or the thread title ... explains a lot ...

A test.  Do you know what the red "OP" under my name means, Holmes?



Wry Catcher said:


> That is THE PROBLEM in need of a solution, and they don't give a damn.  It's all about their Rights as members of the, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" crowd.



Yes, you're a socialist who worships politicians and wants them to have ubiquitous power while the rest of us live in shacks, equal shacks.  But what does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't realize gun laws are not working?  Um ... you didn't read the OP post ... or the thread title ... explains a lot ...
> 
> A test.  Do you know what the red "OP" under my name means, Holmes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is THE PROBLEM in need of a solution, and they don't give a damn.  It's all about their Rights as members of the, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you're a socialist who worships politicians and wants them to have ubiquitous power while the rest of us live in shacks, equal shacks.  But what does that have to do with this thread?
Click to expand...


Only a socialist?  Gee, is that the only pejorative you have in your tool box?  Most of the clowns, like you, string a whole bunch of pejoratives when faced with someone like me, someone who won't put up with dishonesty and bullshit from people like you.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.


While we're talking surgery, I suggest a testicle transplant for you. You are obviously wanting.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working.  That is THE PROBLEM in need of a solution, and they don't give a damn.  It's all about their Rights as members of the, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" crowd.


You admit gun laws aren't working..... Why would you expect another gun law would?

You know what might work? Make assault with a deadly weapon a capitol crime and carry the sentence out within 24 hours of conviction.


----------



## KissMy

Lakhota said:


> I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.



*I always knew you women had penis envy. Female Gun Ownership Skyrockets
*
*"I conduct CCW Courses, OVER HALF of my students are FEMALE (Empowered Women) of ALL ages, 21-78."*


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't realize gun laws are not working?  Um ... you didn't read the OP post ... or the thread title ... explains a lot ...
> 
> A test.  Do you know what the red "OP" under my name means, Holmes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is THE PROBLEM in need of a solution, and they don't give a damn.  It's all about their Rights as members of the, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you're a socialist who worships politicians and wants them to have ubiquitous power while the rest of us live in shacks, equal shacks.  But what does that have to do with this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a socialist?  Gee, is that the only pejorative you have in your tool box?  Most of the clowns, like you, string a whole bunch of pejoratives when faced with someone like me, someone who won't put up with dishonesty and bullshit from people like you.
Click to expand...


I'm dishonest?  You just told me I think gun laws work.  My OP post, my thread title, and this entire thread is about that they do NOT work.  Then you tell me I think they work.  Then you call ME dishonest.  Seriously, do you do heroin?  I'm not kidding.  Something is seriously wrong with you.

And you've still provided zero on how you propose to make gun laws work.  I'll put your last answer next for you.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey



Per the last post.  I mean WOW, anyone would think that would fix gun laws!!!!!


----------



## rdean

I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> The first stop in problem solving is to identify the problem.
> 
> Kaz, M14 and et al,  don't see a problem, that is the basic difference between them and those of us disturbed by mass murders, road rage shootings and other violent acts committed by people with a gun.



The difference, simpleton, is the solution.  We want to solve that problem by stopping them, you want to increase the body count by helping them ensure no one is shooting back.  We already know what your solutions provides.  How are mass murders in gun free zones working for you?  And your solution, make everywhere a gun free zone!!!


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.



Snarky yet clueless.  The key is to have the shooter not know who is armed.  How's the shooter knowing that no one is armed working out for you, Holmes?


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.



What's nuts is your solution of making sure every shooter knows exactly where to go.  A gun free zone...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> d.  You and others are treating the Second as sacrosanct, which has been proven to be false.



I've said repeatedly that gun rights are no more or less rights than any other right in the bill of rights.  At this point I can only guess that the heroin has fried your brain and you have no long term memory.

Again, you repeatedly ignore this completely, I've said it to you at least 20 times.  Then you call me dishonest.  You sir, are seriously dishonest, you are incapable of a rational debate


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.



Choice just isn't an option to you, is it, Karl?  Either we prohibit guns, well, except for the shooter who ignores the law (who'd a guessed), or we force everyone to be armed.  At no point does choice enter your equation.  And as always choice yield's the optimal result.  People who go to the trouble to learn to use guns are armed, and the shooter doesn't know who they are


----------



## danielpalos

Register them for posse  duty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.


OMG!   That is SO original!
Your village called -- it wants its useful idiot back.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working.


What gun law will prevent criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
> How do you prevent their access?
Click to expand...


You can't.  Not as long as a gun owner or purveyor will sell weapons to anyone who wants one, without concern for what they might do with a deadly weapon.

Of course the consequence of losing a license, and thus losing said license and the right to own a fire arm, plus a prison sentence and the consequence of losing all of their weapons, would prevent most so inclined today from selling, giving or loaning a gun to a person who is not licensed.

It's really a simple concept.  It's called the criminal justice system, do the crime and suffer the consequences.  A concept even the dumbest of the dumb understand.  Why don't you?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Register them for posse  duty.



Who?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't.  Not as long as a gun owner or purveyor will sell weapons to anyone who wants one, without concern for what they might do with a deadly weapon.
> 
> Of course the consequence of losing a license, and thus losing said license and the right to own a fire arm, plus a prison sentence and the consequence of losing all of their weapons, would prevent most so inclined today from selling, giving or loaning a gun to a person who is not licensed.
> 
> It's really a simple concept.  It's called the criminal justice system, do the crime and suffer the consequences.  A concept even the dumbest of the dumb understand.  Why don't you?
Click to expand...


Then you pretend that criminals can't get guns!  A lot of dead bodies are telling you that you're wrong.  We already do that, Holmes.  Why isn't it working?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't.  Not as long as a gun owner or purveyor will sell weapons to anyone who wants one, without concern for what they might do with a deadly weapon.
> 
> Of course the consequence of losing a license, and thus losing said license and the right to own a fire arm, plus a prison sentence and the consequence of losing all of their weapons, would prevent most so inclined today from selling, giving or loaning a gun to a person who is not licensed.
> 
> It's really a simple concept.  It's called the criminal justice system, do the crime and suffer the consequences.  A concept even the dumbest of the dumb understand.  Why don't you?
Click to expand...



If you knowingly sell a gun to a felon…today, right now…..you can be arrested for it…no license needed.  No need to register guns.

Please….try to show why you need to license someone…..it is essentially a revenue generator….and a first step toward banning, confiscating guns.


----------



## 2aguy

rdean said:


> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.




It would keep the mass shooters away, and make the theater safer.  How has that "gun free zone" concept worked out so far…..you could ask the guys in Colorado how that worked out…….


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't.  Not as long as a gun owner or purveyor will sell weapons to anyone who wants one, without concern for what they might do with a deadly weapon.
> 
> Of course the consequence of losing a license, and thus losing said license and the right to own a fire arm, plus a prison sentence and the consequence of losing all of their weapons, would prevent most so inclined today from selling, giving or loaning a gun to a person who is not licensed.
> 
> It's really a simple concept.  It's called the criminal justice system, do the crime and suffer the consequences.  A concept even the dumbest of the dumb understand.  Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you knowingly sell a gun to a felon…today, right now…..you can be arrested for it…no license needed.  No need to register guns.
> 
> Please….try to show why you need to license someone…..it is essentially a revenue generator….and a first step toward banning, confiscating guns.
Click to expand...


Wry isn't going to follow that.  He still thinks we want felons to be able to buy guns.  He has a clear comprehension problem


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would keep the mass shooters away, and make the theater safer.  How has that "gun free zone" concept worked out so far…..you could ask the guys in Colorado how that worked out…….
Click to expand...


Choice works better.  You don't need everyone armed.  You need the gunman to not know who is armed.  And that way, only the ones who care to learn about guns and gun safety are armed.  They self select.  Wry's solution is that only the gunman is armed, he doesn't trust the rest of us to carry a gun so we're safer not having one while we're being blown away


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
Click to expand...


Straw man and a lie ^^^


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
Click to expand...

Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illgeal for "crazy and fanatical people" to have guns.
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't.  Not as long as a gun owner or purveyor will sell weapons to anyone who wants one, without concern for what they might do with a deadly weapon.
> 
> Of course the consequence of losing a license, and thus losing said license and the right to own a fire arm, plus a prison sentence and the consequence of losing all of their weapons, would prevent most so inclined today from selling, giving or loaning a gun to a person who is not licensed.
> 
> It's really a simple concept.  It's called the criminal justice system, do the crime and suffer the consequences.  A concept even the dumbest of the dumb understand.  Why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you knowingly sell a gun to a felon…today, right now…..you can be arrested for it…no license needed.  No need to register guns.
> 
> Please….try to show why you need to license someone…..it is essentially a revenue generator….and a first step toward banning, confiscating guns.
Click to expand...


You really are dumb.  How would one prove the seller knew the buyer was a felon?  Or, knew the buyer is prohibited from owning a firearm?

If licensed, a simply Internet Check would protect the seller and maybe save a life.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
Click to expand...


Don't ask stupid questions, and don't make stupid statements.  Both weaken your only argument, i.e. The Second Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you prevent their access?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't ask stupid questions, and don't make stupid statements.  Both weaken your only argument, i.e. The Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

You stated that I argue a straw man and that I lied.
*Where is the straw man?  Where is the lie?*
That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
Well?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working.
> 
> 
> 
> What gun law will prevent criminals from getting guns?
Click to expand...


Stupid question ^^^


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't ask stupid questions, and don't make stupid statements.  Both weaken your only argument, i.e. The Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stated that I argue a straw man and that I lied.
> *Where is the straw man?  Where is the lie?*
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> Well?
Click to expand...


You're too dumb for me to bother explaining.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't ask stupid questions, and don't make stupid statements.  Both weaken your only argument, i.e. The Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stated that I argue a straw man and that I lied.
> *Where is the straw man?  Where is the lie?*
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too dumb for me to bother explaining.
Click to expand...

Translation:
You and I both know that my post was neither a straw-man nor a lie.
So, I ask again:
Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if Kaz and 2aguy have dominated the thread, yet still don't understand that gun laws are not working.
> 
> 
> 
> What gun law will prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid question ^^^
Click to expand...

Only because you do not have the intellectual honesty to produce an answer.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to do something you admit cannot be done?
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't ask stupid questions, and don't make stupid statements.  Both weaken your only argument, i.e. The Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stated that I argue a straw man and that I lied.
> *Where is the straw man?  Where is the lie?*
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too dumb for me to bother explaining.
Click to expand...


It's not like you ever specifically address a point.  For example, here's a point you haven't addressed.  What is your plan?  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns.  Your last response was you'll let States do it.  That isn't an answer.  Before that you said registration and waiting periods.  We do that now.  If you are going to prevent innocent people from defending themselves, then what's your actual plan to protect us?


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man and a lie ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the strawman?  Where is the lie?
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't ask stupid questions, and don't make stupid statements.  Both weaken your only argument, i.e. The Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stated that I argue a straw man and that I lied.
> *Where is the straw man?  Where is the lie?*
> That you want to further restrict the rights of the law abiding in an attempt to prevent criminals from getting guns?
> That you admit laws cannot prevent criminals from getting guns?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too dumb for me to bother explaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you ever specifically address a point.  For example, here's a point you haven't addressed.  What is your plan?  How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns.  Your last response was you'll let States do it.  That isn't an answer.  Before that you said registration and waiting periods.  We do that now.  If you are going to prevent innocent people from defending themselves, then what's your actual plan to protect us?
Click to expand...

He's an anti-gun loon.
He can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## rdean

kaz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snarky yet clueless.  The key is to have the shooter not know who is armed.  How's the shooter knowing that no one is armed working out for you, Holmes?
Click to expand...

Oh wow, that makes perfect sense.  The shooter will shoot if everyone is armed but won't is some are unarmed but he doesn't know who.  And in a dark and crowded theater.  Let the fun begin.  What else is there to say.


----------



## rdean

kaz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choice just isn't an option to you, is it, Karl?  Either we prohibit guns, well, except for the shooter who ignores the law (who'd a guessed), or we force everyone to be armed.  At no point does choice enter your equation.  And as always choice yield's the optimal result.  People who go to the trouble to learn to use guns are armed, and the shooter doesn't know who they are
Click to expand...

How about the choice not to sit in a family theater with someone armed and carrying four rifles and two handguns?


----------



## M14 Shooter

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choice just isn't an option to you, is it, Karl?  Either we prohibit guns, well, except for the shooter who ignores the law (who'd a guessed), or we force everyone to be armed.  At no point does choice enter your equation.  And as always choice yield's the optimal result.  People who go to the trouble to learn to use guns are armed, and the shooter doesn't know who they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the choice not to sit in a family theater with someone armed and carrying four rifles and two handguns?
Click to expand...

You have that choice now.
You can, after all, always leave.


----------



## Ernie S.

rdean said:


> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.


Actually, dweeb, the theater would be safer if those who normally carry a weapon, had them with them in the theater. Arming marginally sentient people like you would be, frankly, dweebish. 
It's only one nut case that starts shooting people, so when he fires his first shot, there are immediately a dozen people equipped to put him down.
If the nut case doesn't show up, everyone gets to enjoy the movie and you and your pussy ilk will never have to see an evil gun.


----------



## Ernie S.

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choice just isn't an option to you, is it, Karl?  Either we prohibit guns, well, except for the shooter who ignores the law (who'd a guessed), or we force everyone to be armed.  At no point does choice enter your equation.  And as always choice yield's the optimal result.  People who go to the trouble to learn to use guns are armed, and the shooter doesn't know who they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the choice not to sit in a family theater with someone armed and carrying four rifles and two handguns?
Click to expand...

If someone came into a theater so armed, my dozen legally armed citizens (above) would likely take him out before he gets off a round. There is a vast difference between a man who carries 4 rifles into a crowded theater and a man who carries a concealed handgun that he carries all the time. 
I carry a weapon from the time I get dressed until I get in bed. When I'm in bed, the weapon is on my night stand within arm's reach. I've never shot anyone in a theater or a school or anywhere else. Why must I disarm myself in certain places in order to give you an irrational feeling of safety when in fact, disarming me puts you in greater danger?


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snarky yet clueless.  The key is to have the shooter not know who is armed.  How's the shooter knowing that no one is armed working out for you, Holmes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow, that makes perfect sense.  The shooter will shoot if everyone is armed but won't is some are unarmed but he doesn't know who.  And in a dark and crowded theater.  Let the fun begin.  What else is there to say.
Click to expand...


Your reading comprehension is horrible.  The shooter will shoot if he knows that know one is armed.  You just made up a bunch of shit that no one said.  Everyone doesn't need to be armed, but when the shooter knows no one is armed, we get what is happening.  Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, all gun free zones, yet, the only one who didn't follow that rule was the shooter.  Nice body count on those, well done


----------



## Ernie S.

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that all gun nuts be given free penis enlargements.  Hence, their insecurity would be greatly diminished.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   That is SO original!
> Your village called -- it wants its useful idiot back.
Click to expand...

Naaah. His village, the Democrat Party, has all the idiots it needs. Few are actually useful.


----------



## kaz

rdean said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choice just isn't an option to you, is it, Karl?  Either we prohibit guns, well, except for the shooter who ignores the law (who'd a guessed), or we force everyone to be armed.  At no point does choice enter your equation.  And as always choice yield's the optimal result.  People who go to the trouble to learn to use guns are armed, and the shooter doesn't know who they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the choice not to sit in a family theater with someone armed and carrying four rifles and two handguns?
Click to expand...


You forgot a grenade launcher, Mr. Hyperbole.

What about the choice to not have government remove your ability to defend yourself so someone decides to blow you and your family away?  That work for you?


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like the GOP plan.  When people enter a crowded and dark movie theater, arm everyone.  Just to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choice just isn't an option to you, is it, Karl?  Either we prohibit guns, well, except for the shooter who ignores the law (who'd a guessed), or we force everyone to be armed.  At no point does choice enter your equation.  And as always choice yield's the optimal result.  People who go to the trouble to learn to use guns are armed, and the shooter doesn't know who they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the choice not to sit in a family theater with someone armed and carrying four rifles and two handguns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have that choice now.
> You can, after all, always leave.
Click to expand...


He can also go to a theater which advertises no guns allowed so whack jobs know he's a risk free target


----------



## Lonestar_logic

I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lonestar_logic said:


> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.



Living in Texas seems foolish, if you are that scared of other Texans.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Wry Catcher said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living in Texas seems foolish, if you are that scared of other Texans.
Click to expand...


Believe what you want. But I would rather be armed when some left wing loon decides to start shooting innocent people. Idiots that think like you is why so many people perish.


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.



I'm all for that, your choice and dean's.  We're a lot more likely to see rdean on the victims list at the next mass shooting than Lonestar_logic, but it's up to the owner of private properties to set their rules


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Wry Catcher said:


> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?



So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?

It appears you are stuck on stupid.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?



I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...


----------



## kaz

Lonestar_logic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...


He thinks that guns are magic firing sticks with an evil aura and gun owners are the guys from Deliverance.  That doesn't describe any of the many gun owners I know.  He's a lily white, elitist, New England liberal.  He has an open mind, you can't reason with him...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lonestar_logic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living in Texas seems foolish, if you are that scared of other Texans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. But I would rather be armed when some left wing loon decides to start shooting innocent people. Idiots that think like you is why so many people perish.
Click to expand...


Idiot think?  Odd comment.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lonestar_logic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...


I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Wry Catcher said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living in Texas seems foolish, if you are that scared of other Texans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. But I would rather be armed when some left wing loon decides to start shooting innocent people. Idiots that think like you is why so many people perish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot think?  Odd comment.
Click to expand...


What's not odd is you misrepresenting what I said.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
Click to expand...


The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.  My experience as a LE Officer for over 30 years suggests to me you are a fear monger. I collect tickets from sporting events around our nation I've attended with my kids.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lonestar_logic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living in Texas seems foolish, if you are that scared of other Texans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. But I would rather be armed when some left wing loon decides to start shooting innocent people. Idiots that think like you is why so many people perish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot think?  Odd comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not odd is you misrepresenting what I said.
Click to expand...


LOL, no sense and no sense of humor.  Not unexpected.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Wry Catcher said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.
Click to expand...


Then don't shop in Sunnyside or the third ward where residents have a 1 in 11 chance of becoming a victim of crime in one year.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.
Click to expand...


There is pretty much no place in this country you would have felt safer than an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I looked at houses all over that area, including Newtown where Sandy Hook is before buying in the next town of Brookfield.  How'd that work out for you guaranteeing there were no guns available?  Odd how the shooter didn't follow that rule


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Wry Catcher said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't cater to business that doesn't allow concealed or open carry firearms. I value my life more than anything they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Living in Texas seems foolish, if you are that scared of other Texans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. But I would rather be armed when some left wing loon decides to start shooting innocent people. Idiots that think like you is why so many people perish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot think?  Odd comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's not odd is you misrepresenting what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, no sense and no sense of humor.  Not unexpected.
Click to expand...


I don't find your stupidity at all humorous and it should be expected.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.  My experience as a LE Officer for over 30 years suggests to me you are a fear monger. I collect tickets from sporting events around our nation I've attended with my kids.
Click to expand...


Am I?  My kids grew up 10 minutes from Sandy Hook, I am a Virginia Tech alum and I worked across the street from the World Trade Center.

Also, here's the thing with being a fear mongerer, I am not mongering any fear.  I'm just saying we should have the right to defend ourselves


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
Click to expand...


Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lonestar_logic said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't shop in Sunnyside or the third ward where residents have a 1 in 11 chance of becoming a victim of crime in one year.
Click to expand...


Okay, I won't.  And I wouldn't if I was carrying a firearm, common sense includes having an ideas of one's surroundings.  In my career I saw the consequences or read reports where someone ignored such warnings or their own sense of security* because* they carried a gun, and bad things happened.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
Click to expand...


That's classic, isn't it?  Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
Click to expand...


Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't shop in Sunnyside or the third ward where residents have a 1 in 11 chance of becoming a victim of crime in one year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I won't.  And I wouldn't if I was carrying a firearm, common sense includes having an ideas of one's surroundings.  In my career I saw the consequences or read reports where someone ignored such warnings or their own sense of security* because* they carried a gun, and bad things happened.
Click to expand...


I thought you were hyperventilating wanting to know why violence is such an issue here while it's not in other countries.  now we have nothing to worry about?  It's actually not a problem?

I'd like to know how you're aware of you're surroundings so you know when a whack job is about to come in and start shooting up the place.  Do you detect a whack job aura?  You're sitting in a class at Virginia Tech and suddenly your surroundings tell you someone is about to come in and start shooting up your classroom?  You're the whack job


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
Click to expand...


Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase.  Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.

Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic, isn't it?  Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it
Click to expand...


Kaz and M14 need to get together and share their love for their guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
Click to expand...


Where's the strawman?
-You believe the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding
-You do not believe the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
So...  where?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic, isn't it?  Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz and M14 need to get together and share their love for their guns.
Click to expand...


Now that's a strawman, you're getting the hang of it now.  I love liberty, a gun is just a tool.  So when you cut your grass, does that mean you're in love with your lawn mower?  Or you just want your grass cut?  If you're not in love with your lawn mower, does that mean you can't cut your grass?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's classic, isn't it?  Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kaz and M14 need to get together and share their love for their guns.
Click to expand...

Says the anti-gun loon, only able to argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase.  Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.
> 
> Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid
Click to expand...


Gee, thanks so much for telling me what I think and what I mean. Your _executive summary _has much more to do with your selective and biased hearing than anything I might have written.

We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> 
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic, isn't it?  Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz and M14 need to get together and share their love for their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's a strawman, you're getting the hang of it now.  I love liberty, a gun is just a tool.  So when you cut your grass, does that mean you're in love with your lawn mower?  Or you just want your grass cut?  If you're not in love with your lawn mower, does that mean you can't cut your grass?
Click to expand...


Let me help (of course I'm not sure you can read and comprehend, but what the hell):  

*
Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.

*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase.  Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.
> 
> Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid
Click to expand...


Shouldn't that be the decision of the individual?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't shop in Sunnyside or the third ward where residents have a 1 in 11 chance of becoming a victim of crime in one year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I won't.  And I wouldn't if I was carrying a firearm, common sense includes having an ideas of one's surroundings.  In my career I saw the consequences or read reports where someone ignored such warnings or their own sense of security* because* they carried a gun, and bad things happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were hyperventilating wanting to know why violence is such an issue here while it's not in other countries.  now we have nothing to worry about?  It's actually not a problem?
> 
> I'd like to know how you're aware of you're surroundings so you know when a whack job is about to come in and start shooting up the place.  Do you detect a whack job aura?  You're sitting in a class at Virginia Tech and suddenly your surroundings tell you someone is about to come in and start shooting up your classroom?  You're the whack job
Click to expand...


Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  

What's the chances of you getting a flat tire on your car?  Do you carry a spare? 

What's the chances of you getting into an accident?  Do you have auto insurance?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> 
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase.  Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.
> 
> Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, thanks so much for telling me what I think and what I mean. Your _executive summary _has much more to do with your selective and biased hearing than anything I might have written.
> 
> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.
Click to expand...


First, he told you what you said, not what you think.

Second, how is your ass not flaming from the overt hypocrisy?  Seriously, you actually do tell us what we think all the time, and what you say we think directly contradicts what we say


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's classic, isn't it?  Guns aren't a problem in this country clearly, Wry is all over it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaz and M14 need to get together and share their love for their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's a strawman, you're getting the hang of it now.  I love liberty, a gun is just a tool.  So when you cut your grass, does that mean you're in love with your lawn mower?  Or you just want your grass cut?  If you're not in love with your lawn mower, does that mean you can't cut your grass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help (of course I'm not sure you can read and comprehend, but what the hell):
> 
> *
> Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument.
> 
> *
Click to expand...


Swish


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> 
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, which is why he didn't use quote marks, they weren't your words, they are a paraphrase.  Seriously, liberals need to go back to High School and learn the English language.
> 
> Clearly as a paraphrase though that is exactly what you are arguing, we are a violent country, but we don't need to carry guns to protect ourselves, that is paranoid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be the decision of the individual?
Click to expand...


Did you mean that question to me or Wry?  If you're asking me, you're preaching to the choir


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So defending yourself with a firearm is cowardly?
> 
> It appears you are stuck on stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to experience a need to defend myself when surrounded by produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't shop in Sunnyside or the third ward where residents have a 1 in 11 chance of becoming a victim of crime in one year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I won't.  And I wouldn't if I was carrying a firearm, common sense includes having an ideas of one's surroundings.  In my career I saw the consequences or read reports where someone ignored such warnings or their own sense of security* because* they carried a gun, and bad things happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were hyperventilating wanting to know why violence is such an issue here while it's not in other countries.  now we have nothing to worry about?  It's actually not a problem?
> 
> I'd like to know how you're aware of you're surroundings so you know when a whack job is about to come in and start shooting up the place.  Do you detect a whack job aura?  You're sitting in a class at Virginia Tech and suddenly your surroundings tell you someone is about to come in and start shooting up your classroom?  You're the whack job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
> 
> What's the chances of you getting a flat tire on your car?  Do you carry a spare?
> 
> What's the chances of you getting into an accident?  Do you have auto insurance?
Click to expand...


I'm still confused why you are asking me these questions.  Did you read my OP, the thread title and what I've been arguing throughout the thread, which is exactly in line with this?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.


Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.

Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Lonestar's logic common among gun nuts?  Do they need a weapon to go outside, to a movie or the Supermarket?  Are they all that cowardly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection, but I actually don't carry a gun.  I live in safe areas and I don't feel the need.   Then again, one of those safe areas was where my kids grew up, Brookfield, Connecticut.  Which is 10 minutes from ... Sandy Hook.  I also am a Virginia Tech alum.  The world isn't as safe as you think...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world isn't as dangerous as you want us to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...   the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding, but not so bad that the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw Man ^^^.  Your words, not mine.
Click to expand...


Where's the strawman?
-You believe the threat of gun violence is so bad that we must further limit the rights of the law-abiding
-You do not believe the law abiding have any legitimate need to carry a gun.
So...  where?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
> 
> Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


70% ?   Your opinion once again?  If you could read to comprehend you might have focused on the two word phrase, "one reason".  But you don't, you don't_ listen, _your too busy defending yourself to absorb the opinion and ideas of others.


----------



## paulitician

Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys. 

But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
> Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% ?   Your opinion once again?
Click to expand...

2013
974,077 violent crimes
274,663 involved firearms
71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
Table 19
Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.
> 
> But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.



Define Criminal.

Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)

Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?  

IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:

*Example *

How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?

*Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.  

It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.
> 
> But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define Criminal.
> 
> Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)
> 
> Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?
> 
> IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:
> 
> *Example *
> 
> How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
> 
> *Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.
> 
> It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.
Click to expand...


Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.
> 
> But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define Criminal.
> 
> Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)
> 
> Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?
> 
> IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:
> 
> *Example *
> 
> How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
> 
> *Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.
> 
> It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
Click to expand...


Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).

And read my posts above, define criminal.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  *Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit;*


Says the guy who mindlessly claimed "We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so", having no idea what % of violent crimes involve guns, and what % of guns are involved in violent crimes.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.
> 
> But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define Criminal.
> 
> Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)
> 
> Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?
> 
> IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:
> 
> *Example *
> 
> How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
> 
> *Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.
> 
> It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
Click to expand...


Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
> Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% ?   Your opinion once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2013
> 974,077 violent crimes
> 274,663 involved firearms
> 71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
> Table 19
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Click to expand...


Again you miss the point  ONE REASON is the essential issue.  But, thank you for finally posting a source for you post.  Now, what are the other reasons?

In my opinion, based on running the domestic violent unit in very large county of rural and urban areas, the two main reasons for violence are domestic violence (including elder, spousal and child abuse) and alcohol abuse.  Armed with a gun robberies are rare, road rage is much more common.

Does my experience comport with the 974,077 crimes your source reports


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
> Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% ?   Your opinion once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2013
> 974,077 violent crimes
> 274,663 involved firearms
> 71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
> Table 19
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you miss the point  ONE REASON is the essential issue.
Click to expand...


OK them....  where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.
> 
> But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define Criminal.
> 
> Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)
> 
> Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?
> 
> IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:
> 
> *Example *
> 
> How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
> 
> *Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.
> 
> It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
Click to expand...


Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a violent country and guns are one reason why we are so.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
> Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% ?   Your opinion once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2013
> 974,077 violent crimes
> 274,663 involved firearms
> 71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
> Table 19
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you miss the point  ONE REASON is the essential issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK them....  where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?
Click to expand...


Read post #4395 and please try not to be the dishonest asshole you seem to be.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans are fully behind taking guns away from criminals. But the Government and Police don't seem committed to doing that. They've instead chosen to attack law abiding Citizens who acquire their firearms legally. I guess it's easier to attack good people who don' fight back. It's hard taking on the bad guys.
> 
> But it's time for Government and Police to start doing their job. Go after the criminals and take their guns away. That's what taxpayers are paying them to do. They're not paying them to attack good law abiding Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define Criminal.
> 
> Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)
> 
> Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?
> 
> IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:
> 
> *Example *
> 
> How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
> 
> *Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.
> 
> It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
Click to expand...


Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unsupportable horseshit, especially given the fact that ~70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
> Thank you for, again, illustrating that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 70% ?   Your opinion once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2013
> 974,077 violent crimes
> 274,663 involved firearms
> 71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
> Table 19
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you miss the point  ONE REASON is the essential issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK them....  where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read post #4395 and please try not to be the dishonest asshole you seem to be.
Click to expand...

4395 does not answer my question.
Please do try again.


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define Criminal.
> 
> Take a moment to think (I know, that gets in the way of your beliefs, but try)
> 
> Consider those recent mass murderers.  How many were criminals   before they committed their horrendous act of violence?
> 
> IMO, this thread is nothing more than a loaded question:
> 
> *Example *
> 
> How many school shootings should we tolerate before we change the gun laws?
> 
> *Explanation:* The presupposition is that changing the gun laws will decrease the number of school shootings.  This may be the case, but it is a claim that is implied in the statement and hidden by a more complex question.
> 
> It is the basis for my contention that the OP's author is dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...


How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?  

For that matter, how many previously law abiding citizens committed violent crimes?  

One more question, if your state required all persons who wanted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, would you obtain such a license?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
Click to expand...

Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government and Police have become lazy and arrogant. They're not doing their job. Taxpayers are fully behind them in taking guns away from criminals. But that's not happening enough. It's time for them to stop focusing on good people who acquire their firearms the right way. That's not what Taxpayers are paying them for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> For that matter, how many previously law abiding citizens committed violent crimes?
> 
> One more question, if your state required all persons who wanted to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, would you obtain such a license?
Click to expand...


Lots of thugs out there with guns wreaking havoc. Time to take em on. The Government and Police have no excuses. We're living in a Police State. They have all the weapons and money they need. They're only lacking the will and guts.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Q.  [for all]  Would you obtain a license if required by your state of all persons who want to, or currently own, a gun;

or, do you believe that your beliefs are above the law?

Q.  Do you believe this County Clerk is acting responsibly?

Q.  Should she be fired?

Federal judge orders Kentucky clerk and her staff to court

Q.  Do you support the Clerk's husband's comment on his Second Amendment Rights?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  [for all]  Would you obtain a license if required by your state of all persons who want to, or currently own, a gun;


Licensure of gun owners, for which there is no sound argument, violates the 2nd amendment.  
Violate, take to court, win.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your rant and move to a country which best fits your needs.  Your first sentence is based on a foundation of very loose bullshit; if you feel government and every police officer in this country are lazy provide examples to your city manager, organize (gee you too could become a community organizer) your friends and neighbors to protest what you believe is basic incompetence - you could call yourselves Occupy Main Street (OMS).
> 
> And read my posts above, define criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
Click to expand...


How does probable cause relate to may comment?  It doesn't, thus you have once again asked a stupid question.  Do you oppose licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, contractors or dogs?  Does a government need to wait until a driver runs a red light, a lay person does surgery or defends a client. a man or women build a structure which falls and kills someone or a dog bites someone?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
Click to expand...

You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
So much for your claim of being an LEO.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 70% ?   Your opinion once again?
> 
> 
> 
> 2013
> 974,077 violent crimes
> 274,663 involved firearms
> 71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
> Table 19
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you miss the point  ONE REASON is the essential issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK them....  where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read post #4395 and please try not to be the dishonest asshole you seem to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4395 does not answer my question.
> Please do try again.
Click to expand...


FU and your stupid questions.  You've flunked the attitude test, punk.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government and Police need to stop being lazy and arrogant. It's time to do their job. Stop with the excuses and take the guns away from the criminals. That's what Taxpayers are paying them to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?  It doesn't, thus you have once again asked a stupid question.  Do you oppose licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, contractors or dogs?  Does a government need to wait until a driver runs a red light, a lay person does surgery or defends a client. a man or women build a structure which falls and kills someone or a dog bites someone?
Click to expand...


Acquiring a firearm the right way is legal, and a Constitutional right. You personally may not like that, but that's irrelevant. There's lots of things people do that i don't care for. But if it's legal and their Constitutional right, so be it. I have to live with it. Those who acquire their firearms illegally, will be dealt with. They're considered criminals. And that's who law enforcement should be focusing on.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2013
> 974,077 violent crimes
> 274,663 involved firearms
> 71.70 % of violent crimes did not involve firearms.
> Table 19
> Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
> 
> 
> 
> Again you miss the point  ONE REASON is the essential issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK them....  where does that reason rank compared to the other reasons?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read post #4395 and please try not to be the dishonest asshole you seem to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4395 does not answer my question.
> Please do try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FU and your stupid questions.  You've flunked the attitude test, punk.
Click to expand...

Translation: 
You have no effective response.
As usual.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  [for all]  Would you obtain a license if required by your state of all persons who want to, or currently own, a gun;
> 
> 
> 
> Licensure of gun owners, for which there is no sound argument, violates the 2nd amendment.
> Violate, take to court, win.
Click to expand...


There you go, posting an echo of all of your past echoes.  That's your usual response and it takes us back pages.  Stop being a punk and an asshole, I'm not going to post this again.  


A license is required today to own military style firearms, and the courts have not outlawed such requirements.
I've never advocated the denial of a citizen to own a gun unless there is probable cause to do so
Probable cause includes convictions for crimes of violence, habitual DUI's, Involuntary civil commitments as a danger to themselves or others, gang affiliation, drug trafficking an sales, rape, sexually battery and other crimes against a person
A license is simply a means to show one has had a background check, something done today but not universally.  It would allow a private sale assuring the seller that the buyer is not a terrorist, domestic or otherwise.
A license can and should be revoked when the licensee has committed and been convicted of any crime by laws requires it
A license can and should be suspended when a crime of violence is alleged, and in such a case the matter of any owned firearms will be up to the magistrate before bail or OR is considered.
Now F off; these are my opinions, thus you have no need to whine, piss and moan.  This is a forum for all of us to express our opinion.

You have and in too many words have defaulted to The SECOND AMENDMENT.  My advice to you to STFU about the Second, least more and more people decide it must be repealed or modified.  Your obsession with guns, and that of a few others is to me pathological.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  [for all]  Would you obtain a license if required by your state of all persons who want to, or currently own, a gun;
> 
> 
> 
> Licensure of gun owners, for which there is no sound argument, violates the 2nd amendment.
> Violate, take to court, win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go, posting an echo of all of your past echoes.
Click to expand...

An echo that you have no capacity to soundly address.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


> You have and in too many words have defaulted to The SECOND AMENDMENT.


Another issue that you have no capacity to soundly address.
Gun control?  Leave the 2nd amendment out of it! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Wry Catcher

I didn't see either of your posts linked above.

That said, thank you for proving you are obsessed with guns, a pathology which may not be a psychosis, but is neurotic to the extreme.

_Those who live by the gun, die by the gun_ (a paraphrase you may now used in your signature line, sans any context - a mendacity of lying by omission of which you have demonstrated a propensity to do).


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I didn't see either of your posts linked above.


Nor have you responded..
Because you know you have no sound response.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
Click to expand...


Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.

Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.

Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.

You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.

Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
Click to expand...


Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?
Click to expand...

Internet credentials?  LOL
Nothing you can post to that end makes up for your lack of knowledge, inability to argue knowledgeably and/or honestly, and your repeated failures to stand and deliver when challenged..


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Internet credentials?  LOL
> Nothing you can post to that end makes up for your lack of knowledge, inability to argue knowledgeably and/or honestly, and your repeated failures to stand and deliver when challenged..
Click to expand...


Your first sentence is true, that you're too stupid to evaluate the evidence with an unbiased eye is your problem, not mine.  So take my advice and and quit whining, it makes you appear pitiful.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you read the op, I didn't ask anyone about "drafting a bill." I asked them to explain their plan.
Click to expand...


Once again, a dishonest loaded question ^^^; which has not been addressed by Kaz, M14 or 2aguy:

A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.  It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.

I have not accepted the question as fact, it is simply a dishonest effort to limit discourse on gun control.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Internet credentials?  LOL
> Nothing you can post to that end makes up for your lack of knowledge, inability to argue knowledgeably and/or honestly, and your repeated failures to stand and deliver when challenged..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your first sentence is true, that you're too stupid to evaluate the evidence with an unbiased eye is your problem, not mine.  So take my advice and and quit whining, it makes you appear pitiful.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you read the op, I didn't ask anyone about "drafting a bill." I asked them to explain their plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, a dishonest loaded question ^^^; which has not been addressed by Kaz, M14 or 2aguy:
> A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.  It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.
> I have not accepted the question as fact, it is simply a dishonest effort to limit discourse on gun control.
Click to expand...

So...  you have no plan to keep guns from criminals.
Thank you for being honest - for once.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  [for all]  Would you obtain a license if required by your state of all persons who want to, or currently own, a gun;
> 
> 
> 
> Licensure of gun owners, for which there is no sound argument, violates the 2nd amendment.
> Violate, take to court, win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go, posting an echo of all of your past echoes.
Click to expand...

An echo that you have no capacity to soundly address.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


> You have and in too many words have defaulted to The SECOND AMENDMENT.


Another issue that you have no capacity to soundly address.
Gun control?  Leave the 2nd amendment out of it! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No responses?
No surprises.


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
Click to expand...


Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.

See:

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
Click to expand...


Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.


I understand that Canada eared an "A" rating from the CSGV, and has single-payer health care to boot.
Really do not understand why the anti-gun socialists don't just pack up and leave.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that Canada eared an "A" rating from the CSGV, and has single-payer health care to boot.
> Really do not understand why the anti-gun socialists don't just pack up and leave.
Click to expand...


Simply relocate to a nation that bans firearms. Otherwise, you'll just have to accept that acquiring firearms in America is legal and a Constitutional right.

Hey, America isn't for everyone. You gotta be a tough sort to hang here. You wanna live in a wussy Nanny State, move to Great Britain or something. It's up to each individual. Like i said, America's not for everyone. It's a tough place.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
Click to expand...


If you're going to take up time and money, at least accomplish something.  One of the reasons most are against new firearm laws is because they won't prevent anything.  All it really does is invite government into your gun cabinet.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going to take up time and money, at least accomplish something.  One of the reasons most are against new firearm laws is because they won't prevent anything.  All it really does is invite government into your gun cabinet.
Click to expand...

The necessity which no one has a sound argument.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rant #2.  You've stated a problem, but offer no solution or evidence that your rant is in fact true.  Of course some LE personnel are lazy and arrogant.  That's true  in some cases, it is not a universal truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?  It doesn't, thus you have once again asked a stupid question.  Do you oppose licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, contractors or dogs?  Does a government need to wait until a driver runs a red light, a lay person does surgery or defends a client. a man or women build a structure which falls and kills someone or a dog bites someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm the right way is legal, and a Constitutional right. You personally may not like that, but that's irrelevant. There's lots of things people do that i don't care for. But if it's legal and their Constitutional right, so be it. I have to live with it. Those who acquire their firearms illegally, will be dealt with. They're considered criminals. And that's who law enforcement should be focusing on.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "illegally?"  I hope you don't mean government approved any more than government needs to approve speech before it's spoken


----------



## Lakhota

Free penis enlargements will solve the gun problem.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
Click to expand...



And it is completely unnecessary.  and pointless....my idea is better....put a brand on the left shoulder of criminals who can't own guns.   You want to sell a gun, simply ask the buyer to show your their left shoulder, if they have the brand on their shoulder you don't sell them the gun....

No need to license anyone, no need for a background check, it is immediate, and no permanent record of law abiding citizens is kept.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Does a government need to wait until a driver runs a red light, a lay person does surgery or defends a client. a man or women build a structure which falls and kills someone or a dog bites someone?



Again, a red light is on legitimately public/government roads.  That you can't have anyone treat your body or represent you in court is ridiculous.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Free penis enlargements will solve the gun problem.



Or in your case, a free penis


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
Click to expand...


I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people

I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people
> 
> I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
Click to expand...




> but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.



Your blow up doll is not actually a person, and can't communicate with you....you are listening to a voice in your head and you need real medical help.  If you have other imaginary friends, a professional, mental healthcare provider can help you with that too.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

*How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws*

By Mark Berman August 29 

"Two journalists in Virginiagunned down on live television by a man who also injured a third person. Two women shot and killed, along with nine other people who were injured and survived, inside a Louisiana movie theater. Nine parishioners massacred inside a South Carolina church.

"Each horrifying burst of violence captured widespread attention in ways the daily cavalcade of people shot and killed across the United States rarely does, breaking through what has become a fog of pain and misery so ubiquitous as to sometimes seem like  background noise. Each shooting prompted calls for stronger gun control laws, which were in turn followed by the usual reminders that such laws were unlikely to follow.

"But how do people in the United States actually feel about the country’s gun laws as they currently stand? In short: There is a lot of disagreement about some proposals and gun ownership itself, but when it comes to a few particular areas, polls show Americans are still strongly in favor of adding new policies and restrictions."

How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people
> 
> I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your blow up doll is not actually a person, and can't communicate with you....you are listening to a voice in your head and you need real medical help.  If you have other imaginary friends, a professional, mental healthcare provider can help you with that too.....
Click to expand...


I've been very serious in stating you are stupid, yet you continue to prove it.  See the post above and below.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Cont from link above:

"Take three specific proposals: Adding background checks to private gun sales, banning people with mental illnesses from buying guns and creating a federal database to track gun sale. Public support for these changes range from very strong to overwhelming, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July.

"This poll was conducted a month after the shooting inside a Charleston, S.C., church, and it wrapped up three days before the shooting inside a Lafayette, La., movie theater, in case you want to know when this sentiment was registered with regard to recent shootings (though our recent history suggests that it would be tough to poll Americans on gun policy without _some_ high-profile, relatively recent shooting likely fresh in their minds).

"The opinions found in the Pew poll weren’t just something that cropped up after the Charleston shooting, though. Support for these proposals is remarkably similar to the feelings expressed in January 2013 in a poll taken shortly after a gunman killed 26 people, most of them young children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn."

How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> *How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws*
> 
> By Mark Berman August 29
> 
> "Two journalists in Virginiagunned down on live television by a man who also injured a third person. Two women shot and killed, along with nine other people who were injured and survived, inside a Louisiana movie theater. Nine parishioners massacred inside a South Carolina church.
> 
> "Each horrifying burst of violence captured widespread attention in ways the daily cavalcade of people shot and killed across the United States rarely does, breaking through what has become a fog of pain and misery so ubiquitous as to sometimes seem like  background noise. Each shooting prompted calls for stronger gun control laws, which were in turn followed by the usual reminders that such laws were unlikely to follow.
> 
> "But how do people in the United States actually feel about the country’s gun laws as they currently stand? In short: There is a lot of disagreement about some proposals and gun ownership itself, but when it comes to a few particular areas, polls show Americans are still strongly in favor of adding new policies and restrictions."
> 
> How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws




Yes...the uninformed on the issue are in favor of addint "new policies" though what that actually means they couldn't tell you ...so I don't think I will take their views seriously....especially since they don't know what gun grabbers actually want.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Cont from link above:
> 
> "Take three specific proposals: Adding background checks to private gun sales, banning people with mental illnesses from buying guns and creating a federal database to track gun sale. Public support for these changes range from very strong to overwhelming, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July.
> 
> "This poll was conducted a month after the shooting inside a Charleston, S.C., church, and it wrapped up three days before the shooting inside a Lafayette, La., movie theater, in case you want to know when this sentiment was registered with regard to recent shootings (though our recent history suggests that it would be tough to poll Americans on gun policy without _some_ high-profile, relatively recent shooting likely fresh in their minds).
> 
> "The opinions found in the Pew poll weren’t just something that cropped up after the Charleston shooting, though. Support for these proposals is remarkably similar to the feelings expressed in January 2013 in a poll taken shortly after a gunman killed 26 people, most of them young children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn."
> 
> How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws




They of course know nothing about background checks and what that would do to private people, and the misuse of mental health by anti gunners or how a national registry has always been used to ban or confiscate guns at a later date...as happened in France, Germany, Britain and Australia........as well as spots in the United States that could get those laws passed, like the New York Safe Act and various magazine bans across the country...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people
> 
> I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your blow up doll is not actually a person, and can't communicate with you....you are listening to a voice in your head and you need real medical help.  If you have other imaginary friends, a professional, mental healthcare provider can help you with that too.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been very serious in stating you are stupid, yet you continue to prove it.  See the post above and below.
Click to expand...



Do you curl up and whisper sweet nothing to your blow up doll......


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people
> 
> I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
Click to expand...


Um...what did I lie about, asshole?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people
> 
> I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...what did I lie about, asshole?
Click to expand...


Review your posts, I'm not your recording secretary.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.  Other than liars, callous conservatives and obnoxious sales people I'm quite amicable with decent people
> 
> I know I can't fix the stupid or get the willfully ignorant to think, but given the feedback I get from normal people I'm on the right course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...what did I lie about, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Review your posts, I'm not your recording secretary.
Click to expand...


Wow, I'm a liar, you can't point to a  lie, I need to find it myself.  Have you always shot blanks or are you just losing your manhood now?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I didn't see either of your posts linked above.
> 
> That said, thank you for proving you are obsessed with guns, a pathology which may not be a psychosis, but is neurotic to the extreme.
> 
> _Those who live by the gun, die by the gun_ (a paraphrase you may now used in your signature line, sans any context - a mendacity of lying by omission of which you have demonstrated a propensity to do).



You watch too much TV, Holmes


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  [for all]  Would you obtain a license if required by your state of all persons who want to, or currently own, a gun;
> 
> 
> 
> Licensure of gun owners, for which there is no sound argument, violates the 2nd amendment.
> Violate, take to court, win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go, posting an echo of all of your past echoes.  That's your usual response and it takes us back pages.  Stop being a punk and an asshole, I'm not going to post this again.
> 
> 
> A license is required today to own military style firearms, and the courts have not outlawed such requirements.
> I've never advocated the denial of a citizen to own a gun unless there is probable cause to do so
> Probable cause includes convictions for crimes of violence, habitual DUI's, Involuntary civil commitments as a danger to themselves or others, gang affiliation, drug trafficking an sales, rape, sexually battery and other crimes against a person
> A license is simply a means to show one has had a background check, something done today but not universally.  It would allow a private sale assuring the seller that the buyer is not a terrorist, domestic or otherwise.
> A license can and should be revoked when the licensee has committed and been convicted of any crime by laws requires it
> A license can and should be suspended when a crime of violence is alleged, and in such a case the matter of any owned firearms will be up to the magistrate before bail or OR is considered.
> Now F off; these are my opinions, thus you have no need to whine, piss and moan.  This is a forum for all of us to express our opinion.
> 
> You have and in too many words have defaulted to The SECOND AMENDMENT.  My advice to you to STFU about the Second, least more and more people decide it must be repealed or modified.  Your obsession with guns, and that of a few others is to me pathological.
Click to expand...


Not one of those prevents a criminal from buying a ... wait for it ... illegal gun.  None of them.  Which was the OP's point.  I know, I am the OP.   So at some point are you going to answer the actual question?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
Click to expand...


Having a gun at home in your safe isn't having a gun to protect yourself


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
Click to expand...


You mean like France?  Yeah, then you're safe from guns...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if you read the op, I didn't ask anyone about "drafting a bill." I asked them to explain their plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, a dishonest loaded question ^^^; which has not been addressed by Kaz, M14 or 2aguy:
> 
> A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.  It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.
> 
> I have not accepted the question as fact, it is simply a dishonest effort to limit discourse on gun control.
Click to expand...


Asking for a plan is a loaded question?



Do you know what that means?  No would be the correct answer


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
Click to expand...


You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
Click to expand...


Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.

The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.

Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
Click to expand...


Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.

Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?

You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one


----------



## danielpalos

Registering for posse duty is my plan.  Any questions?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
Click to expand...


Looks like the academic community also believes you and others like you are sick puppies:

The Psychology of Gun Ownership

BTW, background checks are not universal at gun shows, if we are to believe the the disagreement between the NRA and National Association for Gun Rights.  Below is a source someone like you trusts:

NRA vs. National Association for Gun Rights: How Do They Differ?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.


Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence


----------



## Wry Catcher

A little bit more to ponder:

Gun Deaths and Injuries


----------



## Wry Catcher

Here's a bit more data:

FIREARMS TUTORIAL

"In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012)."

See the graph showing how the US leads in: 
*Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age*


----------



## Wry Catcher

Want more evidence:

Gunshot wounds drive up government health care costs


----------



## regent

Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like the academic community also believes you and others like you are sick puppies:
> 
> The Psychology of Gun Ownership
> 
> BTW, background checks are not universal at gun shows, if we are to believe the the disagreement between the NRA and National Association for Gun Rights.  Below is a source someone like you trusts:
> 
> NRA vs. National Association for Gun Rights: How Do They Differ?
Click to expand...



All vendors at gun shows have to do federal background checks.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Want more evidence:
> 
> Gunshot wounds drive up government health care costs




Except for the 2 million times a year guns are used to stop violent criminal attack…which saves healthcare costs……you always forget that.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Here's a bit more data:
> 
> FIREARMS TUTORIAL
> 
> "In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012)."
> 
> See the graph showing how the US leads in:
> *Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age*




Lie.  Suicides do not count…..there wre 19,000 non gun suicides in the U.S. in 2013…which means if there were no guns then the other suicides would use what the 19,000 other people used.  From the FBI table, there were 8,454 gun murders and from the CDC in 2013 there were 505 accidental gun deaths……

And accidental gun deaths are going down, not up…you are a liar and your sources lie as well.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Here's a bit more data:
> 
> FIREARMS TUTORIAL
> 
> "In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012)."
> 
> See the graph showing how the US leads in:
> *Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age*




Here is the truth….

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would  push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......*35,369*

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013..*.29,001*

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...*30,208*
Accidental drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 72  ( in a country of 320 million people)*


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

*2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505*
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence




And of course it is from the Violence Policy Center, a group that has already been show to lie with their numbers.

Yeah….not true.   More Americans own guns and the gun murder rate is going down, not up.  And they always use suicides to boost their "gun violence" numbers.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence




And this shows how the Violence Policy Center lies with their stats on this…they specifically mention Hawaii…

Study Claims Hawaii's Gun Control Laws Work...Until You Look Closely - The Truth About Guns


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Here's a bit more data:
> 
> FIREARMS TUTORIAL
> 
> "In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012)."
> 
> See the graph showing how the US leads in:
> *Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age*




Notice the number of deaths for "youth" in the CDC tables…..


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 72 ( in a country of 320 million people)*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Free penis enlargements will solve the gun problem.


Thank you for further illustrating how anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.




There were only 8,454 gun murders in the entire United States in 2013.  A population of over 320 million people.  Almost all of those gun murders occurred in small, multi block areas of major cities, usually under the control of democrats.

Each year on average, 2 million people use guns to stop violent criminal attack and save lives.  That is the price of having guns……saving lives and keeping criminals from raping, murdering and robbing innocent men women and children.

Number of accidental gun deaths in 2013….505   In a population of over 320 million people.

Guns are not a problem in the United States, small areas infested with violent criminals are….


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked how you know.   You don't.  And so, you act according to probable cause in that you assume they are unless you have reason to believe otherwise.
> So much for your claim of being an LEO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
Click to expand...

Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> *How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws*


So what?
Planning  to appeal to popularity?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Looks like the academic community also believes you an others like you are sick puppies:
> The Psychology of Gun Ownership


Oh look - another argument from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Here's a bit more data:
> FIREARMS TUTORIAL
> "In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012)."
> See the graph showing how the US leads in:
> *Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age*


300,000,000 gun on the US.
8454 gun-related murder sin the US, 2013.
99.999719% of guns in the US are NOT used to murder.
That is, for every gun used in a murder, ~35500 are not.
Better than 71% of violent crime in the US is NOT committed with a gun.
Your point, negated.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.


Thank you for your mindless nonsense.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heard all the excuses. American Police have more than enough man-power and fire-power to take on thugs with guns. We're a damn Police State for God's sake. They have every advanced weapon known to man at their disposal. So leave law abiding Citizens alone and focus on taking on the criminals. Do the job. Period, end of story.
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?  It doesn't, thus you have once again asked a stupid question.  Do you oppose licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, contractors or dogs?  Does a government need to wait until a driver runs a red light, a lay person does surgery or defends a client. a man or women build a structure which falls and kills someone or a dog bites someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm the right way is legal, and a Constitutional right. You personally may not like that, but that's irrelevant. There's lots of things people do that i don't care for. But if it's legal and their Constitutional right, so be it. I have to live with it. Those who acquire their firearms illegally, will be dealt with. They're considered criminals. And that's who law enforcement should be focusing on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "illegally?"  I hope you don't mean government approved any more than government needs to approve speech before it's spoken
Click to expand...


It's a Constitutional right. Deal with it, or move to a wussy Nanny State country like Great Britain. America's not for everyone. It's a real tough place. Always has been.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to post my BADGE and DD-214?  I won't because I value the privacy of my family, and when I call you obsessed, I'm serious.  Too often we've seen obsessed people commit mass murder. I don't know you, but I wouldn't trust you under and condition.
> 
> Most LE follows policy, and that policy is called a use of force.  Some agents/officers/deputies don't, as we have seen too often in recent months.  Most agencies train LE and require that they qualify AND understand the use of force policy on a regular basis.
> 
> Most agencies require any sworn or non sworn employee to notify them of an arrest.  Failure to do so, or if they do but plead the 5th, they are directed to answer the question or be fired.
> 
> You claim to own a gun, I don't believe you.  I believe you sit in your bedroom in your parents home and pretend to be something your not - an adult.  Probably a high school dropout who wants a gun but has been told by mommy and daddy, "no", because you would probably shot your own eye out.
> 
> Even if you are an adult and own firearms you do not have a use of force policy, you are not trained often on the use of force and any new legislation which impacts that policy.  We've seen to many accidents when untrained fools kill an innocent person because they were scared or because they wanted to be seen as a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
Click to expand...


We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.  

That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.


----------



## regent

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.


Yes-- feel free to amended it.    In fact, rather than state the obvious by saying it can be done, get off your ass and do it.

Until then, you do not get to ignore the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


----------



## paulitician

regent said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.
Click to expand...


Till that day comes, acquiring a firearm is legal and a Constitutional right. Like i said, there's things i see people doing that i don't approve of personally. But i realize it's their right. It's what truly free Societies are all about. 

We have to be careful getting caught up in cherry-picking when it comes to true Freedom & Liberty. It's a very dangerous slippery slope.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.
Click to expand...


Which is why it's so important that people remember that when selecting a President.  He (or she) may pick Supreme Court Justices that would be so anti-constitution that they would rule we don't have rights to firearms.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.



Are you worried about the deaths caused by firearms?  Then why not deaths by drowning?  Did you know that in 2009-2010 nearly 50,000 Americans died from drowning?  

Shouldn't we make swimming against the law or at the very least, make owning swimming pools against the law?  Why should so many people parish and so many families live in pain for the remainder of their lives over swimming?  There are plenty of other exercises people can do besides swim.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like the academic community also believes you and others like you are sick puppies:
> 
> The Psychology of Gun Ownership
> 
> BTW, background checks are not universal at gun shows, if we are to believe the the disagreement between the NRA and National Association for Gun Rights.  Below is a source someone like you trusts:
> 
> NRA vs. National Association for Gun Rights: How Do They Differ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Wry Catcher

30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.


----------



## regent

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you worried about the deaths caused by firearms?  Then why not deaths by drowning?  Did you know that in 2009-2010 nearly 50,000 Americans died from drowning?
> 
> Shouldn't we make swimming against the law or at the very least, make owning swimming pools against the law?  Why should so many people parish and so many families live in pain for the remainder of their lives over swimming?  There are plenty of other exercises people can do besides swim.
Click to expand...

Usually the analogy used is the automobile not swimming pools. Generally speaking one does not carry a swimming pool about to create mischief or create an image. Or perhaps swimming pools are made for a different purpose than guns.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you worried about the deaths caused by firearms?  Then why not deaths by drowning?  Did you know that in 2009-2010 nearly 50,000 Americans died from drowning?
> 
> Shouldn't we make swimming against the law or at the very least, make owning swimming pools against the law?  Why should so many people parish and so many families live in pain for the remainder of their lives over swimming?  There are plenty of other exercises people can do besides swim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Usually the analogy used is the automobile not swimming pools. Generally speaking one does not carry a swimming pool about to create mischief or create an image. Or perhaps swimming pools are made for a different purpose than guns.
Click to expand...


Using either analogy is applicable because both prove you can't sit there and make things illegal just because they cause death.  They all have their purpose.  Swimming is for enjoyment and exercise, driving is almost a necessity to live in our modern world,  guns have saved countless lives and have given people the liberty to not have to live in fear be it at home or on the street, but they all have drawbacks.


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.



Begging the question.  You are just assuming the truth of your position that gun laws work.  Try reading my OP Post and addressing the actual question.  Pot is out right illegal, yet any teenager can get all they want.  How are you going to keep guns from actual criminals.  All your legal rules do is affect honest citizens.  The criminals laugh at your laws


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want more evidence:
> 
> Gunshot wounds drive up government health care costs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the 2 million times a year guns are used to stop violent criminal attack…which saves healthcare costs……you always forget that.
Click to expand...


He ignores it, he doesn't care


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free penis enlargements will solve the gun problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for further illustrating how anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


I see you know Lakhota...


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How Americans actually feel about stronger gun laws*
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> Planning  to appeal to popularity?
Click to expand...


The majority of Americans also don't think women should have unlimited access to abortion.  Suddenly then Wry thinks it's a free country.  Yes, he's a liar, this isn't a standard to him.  He applies it only when it works for him, the rest of the time it's irrelevant


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a bit more data:
> FIREARMS TUTORIAL
> "In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012)."
> See the graph showing how the US leads in:
> *Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age*
> 
> 
> 
> 300,000,000 gun on the US.
> 8454 gun-related murder sin the US, 2013.
> 99.999719% of guns in the US are NOT used to murder.
> That is, for every gun used in a murder, ~35500 are not.
> Better than 71% of violent crime in the US is NOT committed with a gun.
> Your point, negated.
Click to expand...


So, chance of a gun not committing a murder
99.9999719

Chance of a Democrat not committing rape
99.99966

Note a random Democrat is less likely to not be a rapist than a gun is to not commit a murder, should we outlaw Democrats?  They are more dangerous than guns


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would I are a local LE agent know that your are a law abiding citizen?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have probable cause to believe otherwise?  No?  There you go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does probable cause relate to may comment?  It doesn't, thus you have once again asked a stupid question.  Do you oppose licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, contractors or dogs?  Does a government need to wait until a driver runs a red light, a lay person does surgery or defends a client. a man or women build a structure which falls and kills someone or a dog bites someone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm the right way is legal, and a Constitutional right. You personally may not like that, but that's irrelevant. There's lots of things people do that i don't care for. But if it's legal and their Constitutional right, so be it. I have to live with it. Those who acquire their firearms illegally, will be dealt with. They're considered criminals. And that's who law enforcement should be focusing on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "illegally?"  I hope you don't mean government approved any more than government needs to approve speech before it's spoken
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a Constitutional right. Deal with it, or move to a wussy Nanny State country like Great Britain. America's not for everyone. It's a real tough place. Always has been.
Click to expand...


Removing guns just makes it a tough place it's harder to defend ourselves.  Democrats gun logic is if you cancel your homeowners insurance your house won't burn down


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquiring a firearm is and never has been a crime. It's every American Citizen's Constitutional right. However, we do have laws set up to make sure Citizens do it legally. If you acquire a firearm by way of non-legal means, you are a criminal. And it's time law enforcement starts focusing on those people. Law abiding Citizens should not be the targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...


"camo-wearing assholes" are going to be the same without guns and they represent a tiny percentage of gun owners.  Most of us you have no idea unless we tell you


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.
Click to expand...


Yes, the 5/9 process for changing the Constitution that leftists adore.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is in the Constitution.  5/9 is an abomination to liberty.  Government simply grants itself more power


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why it's so important that people remember that when selecting a President.  He (or she) may pick Supreme Court Justices that would be so anti-constitution that they would rule we don't have rights to firearms.
Click to expand...


That is the one legitimate argument to picking the losers the Republicans put up.  The problem is that even that is a coin flip, Souter, Kennedy, Powell, Roberts, all Republicans, guys who don't know what the Constitution is.  So the choice is a Republican coin flip or a certain Democrat leftist nomination


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still only limiting access to guns for honest citizens, you're still begging the question.  You can't buy pot at all legally without a bill of sale, yet, viola, pot everywhere.  Why isn't that working but gun laws will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are one sick POS.  Totally obsessed with guns, with me and with the lunatic ideology of libertarianism.  You use technical terms of which you have no idea of their meaning, and have a mind totally closed to concepts which challenge your beliefs - notice I didn't use the word thinking, because you won't or can't.
> 
> The post above shows my opinions have traction (on gun control) and yours are in the minority.  That's not indicative of a fool, of course, yet when partnered with an obsession, maybe even a fetish, it's becomes a mental health issue.
> 
> Look up Begging the Question and Loaded Question and you might figure out what they actually describe.  That you won't, and pretend you are all knowing is one more sign of a mental health issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a word to look up, deflection.  You know how to do it.
> 
> Your proposals, registration, waiting periods, background checks, we do all that now and they don't work.  How is doing more of what isn't working going to solve the problem?
> 
> You have proposes zero to answer the question.  Pot is actually illegal.  You can't legally buy it, period.  Yet ... ask any teenager they'll get you all you want.  Every one of your proposals addresses buying a legal gun, none of them address preventing criminals from buying an illegal one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like the academic community also believes you and others like you are sick puppies:
> 
> The Psychology of Gun Ownership
> 
> BTW, background checks are not universal at gun shows, if we are to believe the the disagreement between the NRA and National Association for Gun Rights.  Below is a source someone like you trusts:
> 
> NRA vs. National Association for Gun Rights: How Do They Differ?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Exactly, Templar.  They think you take away the gun and the criminal goes home and goes straight and if you take away a legal gun they can't get one.  They are intellectual childen


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.



0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you worried about the deaths caused by firearms?  Then why not deaths by drowning?  Did you know that in 2009-2010 nearly 50,000 Americans died from drowning?
> 
> Shouldn't we make swimming against the law or at the very least, make owning swimming pools against the law?  Why should so many people parish and so many families live in pain for the remainder of their lives over swimming?  There are plenty of other exercises people can do besides swim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Usually the analogy used is the automobile not swimming pools. Generally speaking one does not carry a swimming pool about to create mischief or create an image. Or perhaps swimming pools are made for a different purpose than guns.
Click to expand...


Right, if I want to defend myself, I'm just looking to "create mischief," it's not the criminal who's got the gun regardless of the law says.  We're the problem.  What an idiot you are


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should America just accept the idea that to keep gun manufacturers competitive and in the market place, there is a price that must be paid. The price is the loss of a number of people, some perhaps that should be gone and others,  beloved by family including children that we hate to lose. It is a price that must be paid and so far we have not figured out how to keep gun manufacturers in business without paying that price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you worried about the deaths caused by firearms?  Then why not deaths by drowning?  Did you know that in 2009-2010 nearly 50,000 Americans died from drowning?
> 
> Shouldn't we make swimming against the law or at the very least, make owning swimming pools against the law?  Why should so many people parish and so many families live in pain for the remainder of their lives over swimming?  There are plenty of other exercises people can do besides swim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Usually the analogy used is the automobile not swimming pools. Generally speaking one does not carry a swimming pool about to create mischief or create an image. Or perhaps swimming pools are made for a different purpose than guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, if I want to defend myself, I'm just looking to "create mischief," it's not the criminal who's got the gun regardless of the law says.  We're the problem.  What an idiot you are
Click to expand...

hammock.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever
Click to expand...


In all the words written by you, there is only one point expressed, if not made.  _ It's my right_; what is not expressed yet very obvious is this, _I got mine, fuck everyone else_. 

I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it, only dishonest, lying assholes like you choose to misrepresent it.

I suggest you read Camus' short novel The Stranger and take notice that Mersault is not a criminal, at least up until he uses his gun.

I also think you ought to stop pretending you are an authority on the COTUS, you are nothing more than a parrot echoing the bullshit of other ignorant partisans.  And BTW, Party (D, R, I, or L) is distinct from Partisan, as anyone who thinks about it understands - your obviously don't.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all the words written by you, there is only one point expressed, if not made.  _ It's my right_; what is not expressed yet very obvious is this, _I got mine, fuck everyone else_.
> 
> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it, only dishonest, lying assholes like you choose to misrepresent it.
> 
> I suggest you read Camus' short novel The Stranger and take notice that Mersault is not a criminal, at least up until he uses his gun.
> 
> I also think you ought to stop pretending you are an authority on the COTUS, you are nothing more than a parrot echoing the bullshit of other ignorant partisans.  And BTW, Party (D, R, I, or L) is distinct from Partisan, as anyone who thinks about it understands - your obviously don't.
Click to expand...


This is a message board, we are all entitled to our opinion whether you like it or not


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.


You run away from every challenge put to you. 
\Why?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it


We understand your responses.
We ask you to illustrate how they are sound.
You fail to do so.  Every time.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the 5/9 process for changing the Constitution that leftists adore.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is in the Constitution.  5/9 is an abomination to liberty.  Government simply grants itself more power
Click to expand...


I strongly suggest you read the links found under this search:

Google

You will be able to find some which support your opinion and some which do not.  The tipping point is of course two centuries of jurisprudence (you may need to read the legal definition of this word) under Marbury v. Madison.  

Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all the words written by you, there is only one point expressed, if not made.  _ It's my right_; what is not expressed yet very obvious is this, _I got mine, fuck everyone else_.
> 
> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it, only dishonest, lying assholes like you choose to misrepresent it.
> 
> I suggest you read Camus' short novel The Stranger and take notice that Mersault is not a criminal, at least up until he uses his gun.
> 
> I also think you ought to stop pretending you are an authority on the COTUS, you are nothing more than a parrot echoing the bullshit of other ignorant partisans.  And BTW, Party (D, R, I, or L) is distinct from Partisan, as anyone who thinks about it understands - your obviously don't.
Click to expand...



And so you reveal it……all gun owners are actually criminals…which is why you don't want them to have guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).


Oh look -- another issue you won;t address.
DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won;t address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


LIAR!  You really are a POS.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment can be amended and probably some day it might be, but also the Court, at times, adjusts the Constitution to fit the changing times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the 5/9 process for changing the Constitution that leftists adore.  2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 is in the Constitution.  5/9 is an abomination to liberty.  Government simply grants itself more power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you read the links found under this search:
> 
> Google
> 
> You will be able to find some which support your opinion and some which do not.  The tipping point is of course two centuries of jurisprudence (you may need to read the legal definition of this word) under Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
Click to expand...


Whoa, no need to cry, dude, here's a hanky.  Take deep breaths and try to calm down.

And I don't have a way, I want the Constitution followed.  I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade is an unsupported Constitutional abomination.  I'm anti-death penalty, but there is no Constitutional basis to block it.  The ability for government to rewrite the Constitution at will like criminals like Roberts does scares me more than what the Constitution says when I don't agree with it


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
Click to expand...

Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all the words written by you, there is only one point expressed, if not made.  _ It's my right_; what is not expressed yet very obvious is this, _I got mine, fuck everyone else_.
> 
> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it, only dishonest, lying assholes like you choose to misrepresent it.
> 
> I suggest you read Camus' short novel The Stranger and take notice that Mersault is not a criminal, at least up until he uses his gun.
> 
> I also think you ought to stop pretending you are an authority on the COTUS, you are nothing more than a parrot echoing the bullshit of other ignorant partisans.  And BTW, Party (D, R, I, or L) is distinct from Partisan, as anyone who thinks about it understands - your obviously don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And so you reveal it……all gun owners are actually criminals…which is why you don't want them to have guns.
Click to expand...


Yes, when you carry a gun, being robbed is your fault


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
Click to expand...


You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all the words written by you, there is only one point expressed, if not made.  _ It's my right_; what is not expressed yet very obvious is this, _I got mine, fuck everyone else_.
> 
> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it, only dishonest, lying assholes like you choose to misrepresent it.
> 
> I suggest you read Camus' short novel The Stranger and take notice that Mersault is not a criminal, at least up until he uses his gun.
> 
> I also think you ought to stop pretending you are an authority on the COTUS, you are nothing more than a parrot echoing the bullshit of other ignorant partisans.  And BTW, Party (D, R, I, or L) is distinct from Partisan, as anyone who thinks about it understands - your obviously don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And so you reveal it……all gun owners are actually criminals…which is why you don't want them to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, when you carry a gun, being robbed is your fault
Click to expand...


Stupid comment ^^^!


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
Click to expand...


Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
Click to expand...


It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 alerts - the lunatic fringe has gone hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 alerts, the left has gone impotent.  You still don't actually address my OP post points, ever
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all the words written by you, there is only one point expressed, if not made.  _ It's my right_; what is not expressed yet very obvious is this, _I got mine, fuck everyone else_.
> 
> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it, only dishonest, lying assholes like you choose to misrepresent it.
> 
> I suggest you read Camus' short novel The Stranger and take notice that Mersault is not a criminal, at least up until he uses his gun.
> 
> I also think you ought to stop pretending you are an authority on the COTUS, you are nothing more than a parrot echoing the bullshit of other ignorant partisans.  And BTW, Party (D, R, I, or L) is distinct from Partisan, as anyone who thinks about it understands - your obviously don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And so you reveal it……all gun owners are actually criminals…which is why you don't want them to have guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, when you carry a gun, being robbed is your fault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid comment ^^^!
Click to expand...

^^
More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whining about 5-4 decisions when the decision does not fit within the box of dogma you hold as absolute truth is pitiful - your cheer when Heller gets the "5" and cry like a Boehner when you don't get your way (as in finding for the PPACA).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
Click to expand...

WC happily and profoundly serves to further illustrate how anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance/and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
Click to expand...


That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?


----------



## Lakhota

Here's one for little men with tiny penises.

*Gun Maker Creates 'Crusader' Assault Rifle With Bible Verse On It*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Here's one for little men with tiny penises.


At least compared to those you enjoy as appetizers.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about what you've posted.  If a license to own guns is the law, than those who want to buy or sell a gun simply need to verify that the transaction is legal.  Provide a bill of sale, which includes the license by each of the participants.  Not much different than CA Law which requires a third party broker the transfer.
> 
> See:
> 
> https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "camo-wearing assholes" are going to be the same without guns and they represent a tiny percentage of gun owners.  Most of us you have no idea unless we tell you
Click to expand...


I hear ya, but there's more of em than you think. And they do give gun owners a bad name. It's the gun-obsessed numbnuts that turn most people off. They end up viewing all gun owners as being obsessed 'Gun Nuts.'

It's incredibly important gun owners behave responsibly. It's more important than ever before. Don't act like an angry addict. Don't be hostile and act as if guns & ammo are your crack cocaine. That really does turn the average person off.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> 
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
Click to expand...


LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained my opinion well enough that anyone with below average intelligence gets it
> 
> 
> 
> We understand your responses.
> We ask you to illustrate how they are sound.
> You fail to do so.  Every time.
Click to expand...


Actually he's explained his opinion so that only people with blow average intelligence get it.  Waaayyyyy below


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Here's one for little men with tiny penises.
> 
> *Gun Maker Creates 'Crusader' Assault Rifle With Bible Verse On It*



So are you saying you need a gun to fix that issue or are you saying you already got one and it's still tiny?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there's lots of things people do that i don't like. But if it's done legally and it's their Constitutional right, i have to live with it. You hate firearms, i get that. But you're just gonna have to deal with the fact it's American Citizens' Constitutional right to acquire firearms. If you can't deal with that, maybe it's time for you to move to a country that bans firearms. It's your call.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "camo-wearing assholes" are going to be the same without guns and they represent a tiny percentage of gun owners.  Most of us you have no idea unless we tell you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but there's more of em than you think. And they do give gun owners a bad name. It's the gun-obsessed numbnuts that turn most people off. They end up viewing all gun owners as being obsessed 'Gun Nuts.'
> 
> It's incredibly important gun owners behave responsibly. It's more important than ever before. Don't act like an angry addict. Don't be hostile and act as if guns & ammo are your crack cocaine. That really does turn the average person off.
Click to expand...


There are nut jobs in everything.  For the many gun owners I've known none of them fit that description


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate firearms, I don't even hate assholes such as M14.  I'm intolerant of liars, Like M14 and jerks like M14 & Kaz.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that we both know it is impossible to show where I have lied.
> Like all the other anti-gun loons, you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty; you prove it virtually every time you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all see people doing things we disapprove of personally. But if it's legal and a Constitutional right, we have to accept it. That's what a truly free Society is all about. I'm no gun nut, in fact i actually despise some of the camo-wearing assholes i've encountered over the years. They're obsessed numbnuts. They give gun owners a bad name. They embarrass everyone.
> 
> That being said, i'll always fiercely defend the right to own a firearm. And those who can't accept it's a Constitutional right, really should consider moving to another country where firearms are banned. It's their call. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "camo-wearing assholes" are going to be the same without guns and they represent a tiny percentage of gun owners.  Most of us you have no idea unless we tell you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear ya, but there's more of em than you think. And they do give gun owners a bad name. It's the gun-obsessed numbnuts that turn most people off. They end up viewing all gun owners as being obsessed 'Gun Nuts.'
> 
> It's incredibly important gun owners behave responsibly. It's more important than ever before. Don't act like an angry addict. Don't be hostile and act as if guns & ammo are your crack cocaine. That really does turn the average person off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are nut jobs in everything.  For the many gun owners I've known none of them fit that description
Click to expand...


That's cool, but i have met many gun owners who do behave like angry addicts when it comes to guns and ammo. Their behavior seems very unhealthy. It disturbs the average person. It gives off an unstable crack addict vibe.

Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.


----------



## regent

Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.


Hmm.
Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
Just curious.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.


When you post someone else's talking points, it is usually expected that you cite the source.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


Just saying, camo-wearing gun-obsessed numbnuts don't help the cause. They actually hurt it bigtime. Average people don't get the gun obsession thing. To them, it gives off an angry crack addict vibe. Kinda pushes them in the Anti-Gun direction. 

If you find yourself becoming a gun/ammo addict, you really should chill and check yourself. Is it healthy? Does it help the cause? Gun owners have to accept that they are being observed by average people who don't get the firearm thing. Their behavior matters significantly.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence


Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> When you post someone else's talking points, it is usually expected that you cite the source.
Click to expand...

I didn't read that, it just occurred to me, but if you said it already, how was the response?
I would suspect that most of the arguments, for and against, have already been said hundreds of times, if not more, and they probably could be condensed into less than ten arguments on each side. Is citing an argument on the boards now required? By the way how do you stand on requiring each household in America to have a gun?


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just saying, camo-wearing gun-obsessed numbnuts don't help the cause. They actually hurt it bigtime. Average people don't get the gun obsession thing. To them, it gives off an angry crack addict vibe. Kinda pushes them in the Anti-Gun direction.
> 
> If you find yourself becoming a gun/ammo addict, you really should chill and check yourself. Is it healthy? Does it help the cause? Gun owners have to accept that they are being observed by average people who don't get the firearm thing. Their behavior matters significantly.
Click to expand...

So, no, you do not offer the same advice to gay couples.
Why?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> When you post someone else's talking points, it is usually expected that you cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't read that, it just occurred to me...
Click to expand...

Given that everything else you post sounds like a mindless and/or dishonest talking point issued by the DNC or the CSGV, I find that hard to believe.


> By the way how do you stand on requiring each household in America to have a gun?


You have the right to keep and bear arms.  You also have the right to NOT keep and bear arms.
It's your _choice _to do so or not.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just saying, camo-wearing gun-obsessed numbnuts don't help the cause. They actually hurt it bigtime. Average people don't get the gun obsession thing. To them, it gives off an angry crack addict vibe. Kinda pushes them in the Anti-Gun direction.
> 
> If you find yourself becoming a gun/ammo addict, you really should chill and check yourself. Is it healthy? Does it help the cause? Gun owners have to accept that they are being observed by average people who don't get the firearm thing. Their behavior matters significantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no, you do not offer the same advice to gay couples.
> Why?
Click to expand...


Hey, i'm with ya. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I'm a gun owner myself. However, we do have to accept the current reality. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any reason to grab em. So gun owner behavior does matter significantly. They are being observed. 

Unfortunately, i have witnessed angry crack addict-like behavior with many gun owners. You have to watch out getting obsessed. That behavior frightens average people who aren't into firearms. Don't act like an angry addict. It hurts all gun owners.


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.



Personal choice just isn't part of your world, is it?  How would forcing people who don't want guns be equivalent to allowing people who want them?  That makes zero sense.  You have no logical ability at all


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
> Just curious.
Click to expand...


He won't get that


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying, camo-wearing gun-obsessed numbnuts don't help the cause. They actually hurt it bigtime. Average people don't get the gun obsession thing. To them, it gives off an angry crack addict vibe. Kinda pushes them in the Anti-Gun direction.
> 
> If you find yourself becoming a gun/ammo addict, you really should chill and check yourself. Is it healthy? Does it help the cause? Gun owners have to accept that they are being observed by average people who don't get the firearm thing. Their behavior matters significantly.
Click to expand...


What about addressing his point though?


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners need to be calm and act responsibly. Because they are being observed by average people who don't understand the firearm thing. They're being judged somewhat. It's important not to drive people into supporting the Anti-Gun stance. If you find yourself becoming obsessed with guns & ammo, it's time to check yourself. Get it under control.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.
> Do you give the same advice for gay couples?
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just saying, camo-wearing gun-obsessed numbnuts don't help the cause. They actually hurt it bigtime. Average people don't get the gun obsession thing. To them, it gives off an angry crack addict vibe. Kinda pushes them in the Anti-Gun direction.
> 
> If you find yourself becoming a gun/ammo addict, you really should chill and check yourself. Is it healthy? Does it help the cause? Gun owners have to accept that they are being observed by average people who don't get the firearm thing. Their behavior matters significantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, no, you do not offer the same advice to gay couples.
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, i'm with ya. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I'm a gun owner myself. However, we do have to accept the current reality. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any reason to grab em. So gun owner behavior does matter significantly. They are being observed.
> 
> Unfortunately, i have witnessed angry crack addict-like behavior with many gun owners. You have to watch out getting obsessed. That behavior frightens average people who aren't into firearms. Don't act like an angry addict. It hurts all gun owners.
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question:
Why do you not offer the same advice to gay couples?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- another issue you won't address.
> DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
Click to expand...


Liar!


----------



## Lakhota

Gun Maker Creates 'Crusader' Assault Rifle With Bible Verse On It

Such gun nut nonsense makes me fear for my future gun rights.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them
Click to expand...


Prove it!  I've been attacked but no one has provided a rebuttal to my arguments.  When I call you a liar and an asshole, it has zero to do with any argument made, since the only one offered is, _yes but The Second Amendment.  _I've put that to rest several times.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence
> 
> 
> 
> Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.
Click to expand...


Others, please consider this is the same argument the dumber ones who deny climate change use.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it!  I've been attacked but no one has provided a rebuttal to my arguments.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, nothing but poo as I have, personally, soundly rebutted every argument you've made.
Disagree?
There's a link in my sig that allows you to continue the argument you whined and pleaded for but ran away from once you got it.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence
> 
> 
> 
> Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others, please consider this is the same argument the dumber ones who deny climate change use.
Click to expand...

So I show you that city in a state with virtually no gun control has 2 murders/100,000 people and a state with very stringent gun control has 15/100,000 and you bring up global warming.... No argument? I thought not.
Aside from the obvious difference in total population which is taken into account by showing murders/100,000, what else can you tell me about demographics?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  You really are a POS.
> 
> 
> 
> Says he who know that nothing I said was a lie, especially in that you know you have not addressed that particular issue, as clearly evidenced by your lack of response in the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar!
Click to expand...


Show me any quote you proposed any idea to actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, liar.  You haven't, I'm calling bull to your crap


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Gun Maker Creates 'Crusader' Assault Rifle With Bible Verse On It
> 
> Such gun nut nonsense makes me fear for my future gun rights.



Your hysterical fear of a caracature of gun owners is such an excellent argument ... for your mental disability ...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You violated the inherent truth of liberalism, that makes it a lie.  Let's be honest, we all know that liberals are right on every issue.  We only won't accept it because we're greedy racists.  I mean Wry nailed us, let's at least man up to our weaknesses.  Government is the solution to all our problems, we all actually do know that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it!  I've been attacked but no one has provided a rebuttal to my arguments.  When I call you a liar and an asshole, it has zero to do with any argument made, since the only one offered is, _yes but The Second Amendment.  _I've put that to rest several times.
Click to expand...


Not one argument you made answered the question in my OP or thread title.  You haven't put dick to rest


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence
> 
> 
> 
> Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others, please consider this is the same argument the dumber ones who deny climate change use.
Click to expand...


You have no factual knowledge that "climate change" is real.  Even the term "climate change" is admission you were wrong on global warming so you changed the marketing


----------



## paulitician

Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.

You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence
> 
> 
> 
> Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others, please consider this is the same argument the dumber ones who deny climate change use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I show you that city in a state with virtually no gun control has 2 murders/100,000 people and a state with very stringent gun control has 15/100,000 and you bring up global warming.... No argument? I thought not.
> Aside from the obvious difference in total population which is taken into account by showing murders/100,000, what else can you tell me about demographics?
Click to expand...


Democrats like gun deaths for political hay.  Dead bodies are just the cost of doing business


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.



Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?

To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
Click to expand...

Yes -- still waiting for an answer.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes -- still waiting for an answer.
Click to expand...


Sorry M14, it was your question


----------



## CowboyTed

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.



Add in a $200 a year licence per gun...


----------



## kaz

CowboyTed said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in a $200 a year license per gun...
Click to expand...


What about free speech, can we charge a $200 license for that?  What about freedom from illegal search and seizure?  Are all our Constitutional rights fair game for government to sell us or just that one?


----------



## M14 Shooter

CowboyTed said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> Add in a $200 a year licence per gun...
Click to expand...

This will do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns and violates the constitution.
But then, you know that.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
Click to expand...


This isn't about gays. And i'm sorry, but i have witnessed bizarre gun nut behavior on many occasions. You can spot em pretty easily. They're aggressive and obsessive. The camo-wearing douches are the worst. And there's much more of em out there than you think. 

They approach guns & ammo like a drug addict approaches drugs. It isn't healthy. And it gives all gun owners a bad name. Just chill out and don't take the gun & ammo thing too seriously. Aggressive obsessive behavior only pushes average people into the Gun-Grabber camp.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about gays.
Click to expand...

No.  It's about you not being consistent.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> When you post someone else's talking points, it is usually expected that you cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't read that, it just occurred to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that everything else you post sounds like a mindless and/or dishonest talking point issued by the DNC or the CSGV, I find that hard to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way how do you stand on requiring each household in America to have a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the right to keep and bear arms.  You also have the right to NOT keep and bear arms.
> It's your _choice _to do so or not.
Click to expand...


Half-truth:  You don't have a right to bear all types of arms; some arms require a license.  Thus, a half-truth is basically a LIE of Omission.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
Click to expand...


Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.

Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> When you post someone else's talking points, it is usually expected that you cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't read that, it just occurred to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that everything else you post sounds like a mindless and/or dishonest talking point issued by the DNC or the CSGV, I find that hard to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way how do you stand on requiring each household in America to have a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the right to keep and bear arms.  You also have the right to NOT keep and bear arms.
> It's your _choice _to do so or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Half-truth:  You don't have a right to bear all types of arms; some arms require a license.  Thus, a half-truth is basically a LIE of Omission.
Click to expand...

I can only barely begin to describe the immateriality of your emotional, ignorant/or dishonest opinions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
Click to expand...

Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
Thank you.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> This isn't about gays. And i'm sorry, but i have witnessed bizarre gun nut behavior on many occasions





But you haven't "witnessed bizarre gay behavior on many occasions. You can spot em pretty easily. They're aggressive and obsessive?"  

The question is about your intellectual consistency, Holmes.  You keep presenting to us gun nuts as if that's our problem somehow.  Are the gay nuts the problem of all gays to you?  

The camo-wearing douches are the worst. And there's much more of em out there than you think.



paulitician said:


> Just chill out and don't take the gun & ammo thing too seriously. Aggressive obsessive behavior only pushes average people into the Gun-Grabber camp.



I don't know what you are are referring to, but should people who want free speech not infringed by government "just chill out and don't take the free speech thing too seriously?"  When government illegally searches our property should we "just chill out and don't take the illegal search and seizure thing too seriously?"


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we are on the wrong track? If guns make America safer perhaps every household should be required or encouraged to have one, or even better, every adult over the age of 21. With all adults carrying a gun it would sure cut down on the "spur of the moment" gun deaths, and America would be safer than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> When you post someone else's talking points, it is usually expected that you cite the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't read that, it just occurred to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given that everything else you post sounds like a mindless and/or dishonest talking point issued by the DNC or the CSGV, I find that hard to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way how do you stand on requiring each household in America to have a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the right to keep and bear arms.  You also have the right to NOT keep and bear arms.
> It's your _choice _to do so or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half-truth:  You don't have a right to bear all types of arms; some arms require a license.  Thus, a half-truth is basically a LIE of Omission.
Click to expand...


Here's a word for you to look up, "infringed."  What does "shall not be infringed" mean?  Does that mean government will inform us what guns we can and can't have?  

Can government decide that for speech too?  What topics we can freely discuss?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
Click to expand...


You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"


----------



## Ernie S.

CowboyTed said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in a $200 a year licence per gun...
Click to expand...

Would you like to pay $200/year to vote? To execize your freedom of speech? If you don't pay your local police department $200/year, can the search your home without a warrant?


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.

Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
Click to expand...


You need to stop thinking you actually witnessed things you saw on TV


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on....
Click to expand...

Your inability to admit your inconsistencies.
I got it,.  Thank you.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays. And i'm sorry, but i have witnessed bizarre gun nut behavior on many occasions. You can spot em pretty easily. They're aggressive and obsessive. The camo-wearing douches are the worst. And there's much more of em out there than you think.
> 
> They approach guns & ammo like a drug addict approaches drugs. It isn't healthy. And it gives all gun owners a bad name. Just chill out and don't take the gun & ammo thing too seriously. Aggressive obsessive behavior only pushes average people into the Gun-Grabber camp.
Click to expand...

He asked a simple question. Does the strange dude below help or hurt his cause?


----------



## asaratis

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.


So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?

People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, too many gun owners have no idea how their own behavior and approach often pushes average people in the Anti-Gun direction. Too many behave aggessively and obsessively when it comes to guns and ammo. I've witnessed the bizarre behavior myself on many occasions.
> 
> You can't take the gun thing too seriously. It can turn one into an angry addict. The aggressive obsessive approach frightens average people who aren't into the firearm thing. It pushes them into the Gun-Grabber camp. Gun owners need to understand that their behavior does matter. Most Americans don't want guns in the hands of angry obsessed gun nuts. I'm sorry, but that is the reality. Just behave calmly and don't become obsessed. That approach is much better for the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
Click to expand...


Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em. 

Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to stop thinking you actually witnessed things you saw on TV
Click to expand...


I've personally observed weird aggressive obsessive behavior on many occasions in regards to gun owners. I'm a gun owner myself. And many gun owners do treat guns & ammo like drugs. They're angry addicts. They give all gun owners a bad name. They're an embarrassment. They hurt the cause.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
Click to expand...


So again, somehow we're supposed to be apologists for gun nuts, but gays you don't call to hold that standard


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to stop thinking you actually witnessed things you saw on TV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've personally observed weird aggressive obsessive behavior on many occasions in regards to gun owners. I'm a gun owner myself. And many gun owners do treat guns & ammo like drugs. They're angry addicts. They give all gun owners a bad name. They're an embarrassment.
Click to expand...


Apparently you know the stereotypes liberals claim gun owners are. 

Some people drive like idiots, should all drivers be apologists for that?

What about gays, should they be apologists for wacko gays?


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, somehow we're supposed to be apologists for gun nuts, but gays you don't call to hold that standard
Click to expand...


The subject of the thread isn't about gays. That's another issue. But seriously, it would be wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Ignoring it, will only hurt the cause. 

If you're obsessed with guns & ammo, you probably do have a problem. You should chill out and find another hobby. It's those kind of gun owners who are pushing more people into the Gun-Grabber camp.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that.....
I suppose there are people obsessed with guns. Most of those are not really going to let the average person ever see their guns, let alone scare those too delicate to deal with people exercising their rights.
Define obsessed. I own, let's just say, more than 4 and less than 100 guns. Am I obsessed? I carry one from the time I put on my pants til the time I take them off. I have drawn my weapon and stuck it in a man's chest. Am I obsessed? I own camouflage clothing. Am I obsessed? I'm applying for my FFL. Am I obsessed?

WHF is obsessed in your mind?


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.


No.  It's your inconsistency.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to stop thinking you actually witnessed things you saw on TV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've personally observed weird aggressive obsessive behavior on many occasions in regards to gun owners. I'm a gun owner myself. And many gun owners do treat guns & ammo like drugs. They're angry addicts. They give all gun owners a bad name. They're an embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you know the stereotypes liberals claim gun owners are.
> 
> Some people drive like idiots, should all drivers be apologists for that?
> 
> What about gays, should they be apologists for wacko gays?
Click to expand...


I'm a gun owner myself. And i do witness that kind of aggressive obsessive behavior all the time. It's not all gun owners, but it's a lot of em. Too many of em.


----------



## asaratis

Yurt said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for providing a plan.
> 
> however, your plan would not work.  how do conduct a background check of a private party selling a gun to a friend?  currently crimes and deaths have been committed even when a background check is done.  it does help, but is not foolproof.
> 
> what would registration solve?  if i sell my gun to person X, and they use it for a crime, why should i be responsible?  a store is not responsible for a dui when someone gets drunk and drives.
Click to expand...

Debating the effectiveness of gun control laws with proponents of gun control laws is akin to asking them to accept reality in lieu of their false logic.  They logically conclude that if a criminal had no gun, the criminal could not use the gun to commit a crime.  This is quite true.  Then they err in concluding that gun laws will keep guns away from criminals.  The err in concluding that law abiding citizens will not have their constitutional gun rights infringed upon by laws limiting their access to guns.

People like Geraldo Rivera (a proponent of gun control) are surrounded by paid bodyguards.  Geraldo doesn't need to carry a gun.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that.....
> I suppose there are people obsessed with guns. Most of those are not really going to let the average person ever see their guns, let alone scare those too delicate to deal with people exercising their rights.
> Define obsessed. I own, let's just say, more than 4 and less than 100 guns. Am I obsessed? I carry one from the time I put on my pants til the time I take them off. I have drawn my weapon and stuck it in a man's chest. Am I obsessed? I own camouflage clothing. Am I obsessed? I'm applying for my FFL. Am I obsessed?
> 
> WHF is obsessed in your mind?
Click to expand...


I've observed a lot of aggressive and obsessive behavior in regards to gun owners over the years. It is disturbing behavior. And i'm a gun owner myself. For some reason, many who own several firearms do seem to exhibit aggressive obsessive tendencies. Too much hostility. 

And i can see how that would make people nervous. The camo-wearing jackasses are the worst offenders. They're all about aggression and bravado. They make people wanna run to the Gun-Grabber cause.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
Click to expand...


It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.


----------



## paulitician

asaratis said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for providing a plan.
> 
> however, your plan would not work.  how do conduct a background check of a private party selling a gun to a friend?  currently crimes and deaths have been committed even when a background check is done.  it does help, but is not foolproof.
> 
> what would registration solve?  if i sell my gun to person X, and they use it for a crime, why should i be responsible?  a store is not responsible for a dui when someone gets drunk and drives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Debating the effectiveness of gun control laws with proponents of gun control laws is akin to asking them to accept reality in lieu of their false logic.  They logically conclude that if a criminal had no gun, the criminal could not use the gun to commit a crime.  This is quite true.  Then they err in concluding that gun laws will keep guns away from criminals.  The err in concluding that law abiding citizens will not have their constitutional gun rights infringed upon by laws limiting their access to guns.
> 
> People like Geraldo Rivera (a proponent of gun control) are surrounded by paid bodyguards.  Geraldo doesn't need to carry a gun.
Click to expand...


Yes, Limousine Liberals don't live in the real world. They live in guarded gated communities and send their children to private schools. They're Communists/Progressives, yet they love their wealth. They certainly don't give all their money away and become 'Good Communists.' 

They just expect the little people to be the good Communists. They won't be standing in long lines for toilet paper like they did in the Soviet Union or like they do in Venezuela. Only the little people will be doing that. Communism/Socialism looks good to them because they won't have to experience the misery. They're rich. I truly do despise Limousine Liberals.


----------



## Ernie S.

Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?



How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that our problem that there are a few nuts out there and the Democrat nuts exploit that?
> 
> To 2guy's point, do you offer the same advice to gays?  Are the wacko gays the problem of all gay's?  Do all gays need to feel like they are like you tell gun owners that somehow the wackos are our problem?  It's a great question
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
Click to expand...


Must be where you live because I've never seen anything like that.  I own guns as do many of my friends and some family members.  I know people who are really into guns, but their personality is no different than those who are into coin collecting, buying electric guitars, fascination of cars or even collecting baseball cards.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, somehow we're supposed to be apologists for gun nuts, but gays you don't call to hold that standard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays. That's another issue. But seriously, it would be wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Ignoring it, will only hurt the cause.
Click to expand...


Intellectual consistency is clearly relevant whether you want it to be or not, it shows whether your standard is actually a standard or not.  In your case it's not, you don't apply the same standard to one group (gays) you apply to another (guns).



paulitician said:


> [If you're obsessed with guns & ammo, you probably do have a problem. You should chill out and find another hobby. It's those kind of gun owners who are pushing more people into the Gun-Grabber camp.



Thanks for your concern over my feelings, girlfriend.  I'll let you know if I need a hug.  Just so you know, you have no idea how I feel and I don't care if you did, so I'd just not worry about it.

So again, somehow gun nuts are the problem of mainstream American gun owners.  But apparently gay wackos are not the problem of other gays.  Got it


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be where you live because I've never seen anything like that.  I own guns as do many of my friends and some family members.  I know people who are really into guns, but their personality is no different than those who are into coin collecting, buying electric guitars, fascination of cars or even collecting baseball cards.
Click to expand...


He can't tell the difference between what he actually personally witnesses and what he sees on TV.  He still thinks aliens actually exist because he met Alf by watching his show


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be where you live because I've never seen anything like that.  I own guns as do many of my friends and some family members.  I know people who are really into guns, but their personality is no different than those who are into coin collecting, buying electric guitars, fascination of cars or even collecting baseball cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't tell the difference between what he actually personally witnesses and what he sees on TV.  He still thinks aliens actually exist because he met Alf by watching his show
Click to expand...


It does sound like he's reading more into people than they are.  Also I've never heard a pro-gun person ever change their stance because they seen anybody act like the people he's describing that he supposedly sees all the time.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be where you live because I've never seen anything like that.  I own guns as do many of my friends and some family members.  I know people who are really into guns, but their personality is no different than those who are into coin collecting, buying electric guitars, fascination of cars or even collecting baseball cards.
Click to expand...


Many who own several guns, do seem to exhibit aggression and bravado. That behavior scares people who aren't into firearms. I own guns and have been in the gun selling business. So i've been around a lot of gun owners. 

Most are ok, but many do exhibit a Rambo-wannabe aggressive behavior. Too many really do believe the more firearms they own, the tougher they are. It's dangerous thinking.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it. Guns will be banned lickety-split. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to explain to you how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. You dress in camo head to toe and act aggressively and obsessively, most are gonna get frightened and view you as weird gun psychos.
> 
> Behavior does matter when it comes to perception. And honestly, i have come across too many aggressive obsessive gun owners. It's an unhealthy addiction for some. If you're acting aggressive and obsessive pertaining to guns, maybe you really shouldn't have guns. That's how many Americans see it. So don't ignore perception. You'll regret it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, somehow we're supposed to be apologists for gun nuts, but gays you don't call to hold that standard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays. That's another issue. But seriously, it would be wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Ignoring it, will only hurt the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectual consistency is clearly relevant whether you want it to be or not, it shows whether your standard is actually a standard or not.  In your case it's not, you don't apply the same standard to one group (gays) you apply to another (guns).
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> [If you're obsessed with guns & ammo, you probably do have a problem. You should chill out and find another hobby. It's those kind of gun owners who are pushing more people into the Gun-Grabber camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your concern over my feelings, girlfriend.  I'll let you know if I need a hug.  Just so you know, you have no idea how I feel and I don't care if you did, so I'd just not worry about it.
> 
> So again, somehow gun nuts are the problem of mainstream American gun owners.  But apparently gay wackos are not the problem of other gays.  Got it
Click to expand...


Glad i could help.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?
Click to expand...


Being a gun-obsessed asshole won't help the cause. It'll only hurt it.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's about you not being consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be where you live because I've never seen anything like that.  I own guns as do many of my friends and some family members.  I know people who are really into guns, but their personality is no different than those who are into coin collecting, buying electric guitars, fascination of cars or even collecting baseball cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many who own several guns, do seem to exhibit aggression and bravado. That behavior scares people who aren't into firearms. I own guns and have been in the gun selling business. So i've been around a lot of gun owners.
> 
> Most are ok, but many do exhibit a Rambo-wannabe aggressive behavior. Too many really do believe the more firearms they own, the tougher they are. It's dangerous thinking.
Click to expand...


You just keep repeating what you saw on TV.  We're actual gun owners, not a bunch of liberals snapping towels in the locker room.  When you describe "gun owners" we know you're full of shit


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to help by letting us know that as long as we're reasonable and we don't think guns are actually a protected right then we won't lose them entirely.  Hmm.  Thanks for that "help"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know your enemy. It's wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Most are not Gun-Grabber zealots. Most are reasonable people who just fear guns. And sadly, too many gun owners are obsessed aggressive kooks. They're giving people good reason to fear em.
> 
> Many gun owners do approach guns & ammo the way drug addicts approach drugs. It's disturbing behavior. It creeps out average people who aren't into firearms. It's a good idea to understand perception. It helps the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So again, somehow we're supposed to be apologists for gun nuts, but gays you don't call to hold that standard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays. That's another issue. But seriously, it would be wise to begin understanding how most Anti-Gun folks think. Ignoring it, will only hurt the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectual consistency is clearly relevant whether you want it to be or not, it shows whether your standard is actually a standard or not.  In your case it's not, you don't apply the same standard to one group (gays) you apply to another (guns).
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> [If you're obsessed with guns & ammo, you probably do have a problem. You should chill out and find another hobby. It's those kind of gun owners who are pushing more people into the Gun-Grabber camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your concern over my feelings, girlfriend.  I'll let you know if I need a hug.  Just so you know, you have no idea how I feel and I don't care if you did, so I'd just not worry about it.
> 
> So again, somehow gun nuts are the problem of mainstream American gun owners.  But apparently gay wackos are not the problem of other gays.  Got it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad i could help.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I fell better now, thanks for caring


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a gun-obsessed asshole won't help the cause. It'll only hurt it.
Click to expand...


So we're assholes while the anti-gun crowd are just concerned citizens, but you're on our side.  Thanks, that is so reassuring


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another stupid comment.  Are you channeling M14 and 2aguy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it!  I've been attacked but no one has provided a rebuttal to my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is, of course, nothing but poo as I have, personally, soundly rebutted every argument you've made.
> Disagree?
> There's a link in my sig that allows you to continue the argument you whined and pleaded for but ran away from once you got it.
Click to expand...


I not only disagree, I find your arrogance hysterically funny - your are either challenged by reality or one of those liars who denies  they ever put their hand in the cookie jar, even when shown a photo of them with their hand in the cookie jar.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a gun-obsessed asshole won't help the cause. It'll only hurt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're assholes while the anti-gun crowd are just concerned citizens, but you're on our side.  Thanks, that is so reassuring
Click to expand...


No, "we're" is again a lie.  Never have I called all gun owners assholes, only assholes like you and M14.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, y'all wanna be aggressive obsessive gun nuts, so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your inconsistency on this matter is noted.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to enlighten you on how average people who aren't into the firearm thing see things. Honestly, too many people into guns do behave aggressively and obsessively. I've witnessed the behavior on many occasions. They behave like angry drug addicts demanding a fix.
> 
> Most gun owners don't understand that perception is everything. Gun owners need to watch their behavior. Because they are being observed. The Gun-Grabbers are looking for any excuse to grab em. And unfortunately, many gun owners are giving them more excuses. Curb the aggression and obsession, or else. Just stating reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be where you live because I've never seen anything like that.  I own guns as do many of my friends and some family members.  I know people who are really into guns, but their personality is no different than those who are into coin collecting, buying electric guitars, fascination of cars or even collecting baseball cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many who own several guns, do seem to exhibit aggression and bravado. That behavior scares people who aren't into firearms. I own guns and have been in the gun selling business. So i've been around a lot of gun owners.
> 
> Most are ok, but many do exhibit a Rambo-wannabe aggressive behavior. Too many really do believe the more firearms they own, the tougher they are. It's dangerous thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating what you saw on TV.  We're actual gun owners, not a bunch of liberals snapping towels in the locker room.  When you describe "gun owners" we know you're full of shit
Click to expand...


I know gun owners pretty well. I'm a gun owner, and i sold guns for a time. Like i said, most are fine but there are a lot of aggressive obsessive loons out there. I've dealt with many over the years. I got to a point where i did have to question whether or not many of em should have guns. That's when i got out of the gun selling business. 

You'll know if you're a gun addict, when or if buying a gun or ammo begins to feel like a drug fix. I encountered hundreds of kooks who had to have their guns & ammo as badly as drug addicts have to have their drugs. And those people do scare average people who don't get the firearm thing. I'm just saying you need to start seeing the whole picture.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence
> 
> 
> 
> Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others, please consider this is the same argument the dumber ones who deny climate change use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I show you that city in a state with virtually no gun control has 2 murders/100,000 people and a state with very stringent gun control has 15/100,000 and you bring up global warming.... No argument? I thought not.
> Aside from the obvious difference in total population which is taken into account by showing murders/100,000, what else can you tell me about demographics?
Click to expand...


I'm so sorry, my comment was way over your head.  Silly of me to think you might understand.

I've posted several links above, if you're curious (and therefore not willfully ignorant) you can find all my posts on this thread and the proof that M14 and KAZ are liars, 2aguy is retarded, and the fact I'm not opposed to the Second Amendment, per se, only in the manner  Kaz, M14 and the gun lobby have expanded it.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
Click to expand...

Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's some more data, sure to make some crazier.
> 
> 
> Study Shows ‘More Guns, More Crime': States With Lax Gun Laws Have More Gun Violence
> 
> 
> 
> Show me statistics for say, Burlington, Vermont and Chicago Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Others, please consider this is the same argument the dumber ones who deny climate change use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I show you that city in a state with virtually no gun control has 2 murders/100,000 people and a state with very stringent gun control has 15/100,000 and you bring up global warming.... No argument? I thought not.
> Aside from the obvious difference in total population which is taken into account by showing murders/100,000, what else can you tell me about demographics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry, my comment was way over your head.  Silly of me to think you might understand.
> 
> I've posted several links above, if you're curious (and therefore not willfully ignorant) you can find all my posts on this thread and the proof that M14 and KAZ are liars, 2aguy is retarded, and the fact I'm not opposed to the Second Amendment, per se, only in the manner  Kaz, M14 and the gun lobby have expanded it.
Click to expand...

Yet you refuse to answer the question posed. Silly of me to expect intellectual honesty from you.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a gun-obsessed asshole won't help the cause. It'll only hurt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're assholes while the anti-gun crowd are just concerned citizens, but you're on our side.  Thanks, that is so reassuring
Click to expand...


Most gun owners are not gun-obsessed assholes. But too many are. And that is a concern to many Americans. Sorry,  but i'm just telling you the real deal.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!
Click to expand...


Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in a $200 a year license per gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about free speech, can we charge a $200 license for that?  What about freedom from illegal search and seizure?  Are all our Constitutional rights fair game for government to sell us or just that one?
Click to expand...


Silly argument posted too many times.

There are exceptions to search and seizure, a warrant is not always necessary***
As for Free Speech, it's a right to exercise it, why not board commerical airplane and tell the flight attendant you have a bomb.
***Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement


----------



## paulitician

Unless you've been in the gun selling business, you don't really know gun owners. I'm a gun owner who's sold numerous firearms. I've seen it all. So when i say there's too many gun-obsessed assholes out there, you can bet it's reality.


----------



## Ernie S.

DESCRIBE a gun obsessed asshole. How would I recognize him on the street?


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?
Click to expand...

Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?


----------



## Ernie S.

I am in the bar business. I can describe a booze obsessed asshole.
Do "gun-obsessed assholes" slur their words? Fall off their bar stools?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
> Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?
Click to expand...


Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.


----------



## Wry Catcher

asaratis said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
Click to expand...


A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?

Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted. 

MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:

Fines increased Dramatically
Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
License Suspensions and Revocations
Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
Generally three years probation. 
MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
> Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.
Click to expand...

What makes a person having many guns any more dangerous than a person who owns one?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
> 
> 
> 
> Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
> Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes a person having many guns any more dangerous than a person who owns one?
Click to expand...


More, less, who knows? But if you have 200 guns, you probably are just a tad bit obsessed. And personally, i don't feel being gun-obsessed is healthy. I'm a gun owner saying that.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?
> 
> Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted.
> 
> MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:
> 
> Fines increased Dramatically
> Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
> License Suspensions and Revocations
> Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
> Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
> Generally three years probation.
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
Click to expand...



Okay genius........what do all of those things have in common.......they happen to those who break the law.  None of those things are expected to be done to law abiding innocent people you moron.  Your whole stupid belief system falls apart with this post.

Those of us who support the right to own and carry guns post all the time that the problem is that prosecutors and judges are not putting gun criminals in jail.....The police Superintendent of Chicago just stated that they arrested 2,100 gun criminals, and prosecutors and judges let them right back out on the street.....

We tell you morons that the way to stop gun crime is exactly what you posted for MADD...and what you say they did in california....but we actually want to be tougher because the criminals are using guns...


You....you want to apply all of those things...but to people who have committed no crime, have broken no law.  You essentially want all cars to have breathalyzers before anyone is arrested for a DUI...because they aren't a drunk driver till they drive drunk, so all cars need breathalyzers...that is you argument for guns


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?
> 
> Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted.
> 
> MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:
> 
> Fines increased Dramatically
> Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
> License Suspensions and Revocations
> Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
> Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
> Generally three years probation.
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
Click to expand...

DWI is against the law. There SHOULD be severe penalties.
Owning a gun is a protected right.
Now, what you do with a gun is a personal choice. I choose not to shoot people unless I absolutely must. I an not dangerous to you unless you do something incredibly stupid like the clown at my bar did a month ago and bring a knife to a gun fight.
Some people intend to use a gun in a criminal manner. Those crimes would still be illegal if done with a knife or a needle. The choice of weapon is irrelevant.


----------



## 2aguy

Look moron.......again, to drive home the point on how dumb your points are.....

Everything you say that MADD has implemented....happens after the person breaks the law.....Right?

they do not do any of those things until the person gets behind the wheel and drives drunk .....right?

And then the punishments listed go into effect...right?

MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:

Fines increased Dramatically
Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
License Suspensions and Revocations
Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
Generally three years probation. 
MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.


Okay, smart guy......which of the above things happen before the driver drives drunk?

Not one of them.....

But, you want the equivalent of Breathalyzers in all cars, but for gun owners....you want them all to have a license to own a legal product even though they have broken no law.   You want to punish them before they become a criminal.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I a collector? Do I sell guns? Does having 100 acres of property make me obsessed? DEFINE OBSESSED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
> Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes a person having many guns any more dangerous than a person who owns one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More, less, who knows? But if you have 200 guns, you probably are just a tad bit obsessed. And personally, i don't feel being gun-obsessed is healthy. I'm a gun owner saying that.
Click to expand...

So, you STILL can't describe what a gun obsessed asshole looks or acts like.

The point is, if you saw me on the street, you would have no idea how many guns I had and more importantly, what I am likely to do with them.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?
> 
> Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted.
> 
> MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:
> 
> Fines increased Dramatically
> Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
> License Suspensions and Revocations
> Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
> Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
> Generally three years probation.
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
Click to expand...




> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.



Gun owners support arrest and long prison sentences for gun criminals and felons caught with guns...how is that different than what MADD does genius?   



> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony



A first gun offense is a felony moron.



> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests



If you are a convicted felon you can never own a gun again....right?



> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime



As a felon you go into the federal data base for background checks already...right genius?



> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests



If you are caught with a gun you lose it...if you are a convicted criminal caught with a gun, you can be arrested on the spot....

So what exactly isn't the NRA doing to support all of these things that already happen....

Do you actually use your brain....?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need 100 guns? Surely, you can see how that could be a little disturbing to many? Just a little obsessive, no?
> 
> 
> 
> Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
> Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes a person having many guns any more dangerous than a person who owns one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More, less, who knows? But if you have 200 guns, you probably are just a tad bit obsessed. And personally, i don't feel being gun-obsessed is healthy. I'm a gun owner saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you STILL can't describe what a gun obsessed asshole looks or acts like.
> 
> The point is, if you saw me on the street, you would have no idea how many guns I had and more importantly, what I am likely to do with them.
Click to expand...


Just giving you another side of the story. Most people don't see you having 200 guns as being normal. And like i said earlier, i sold guns for a time. I know gun owners better than most. 

I got to a point where i did have to question whether or not many of them should have firearms. I soon got out of the gun selling business. I saw firsthand what gun-obsessed addicts look like. It's pretty ugly.


----------



## paulitician

I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.

It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.




We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....

Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....

That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....
> 
> That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.
Click to expand...


I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems both unwise and unnecessary nowadays.

Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....
> 
> That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems unnecessary nowadays.
> 
> Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.
Click to expand...



Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....
> 
> That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems unnecessary nowadays.
> 
> Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
Click to expand...


You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is. 

I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I NEED 100? No, but I want 250. How is that obsessive?
> Let's suppose I had a 9x12 foot bank vault here and you saw me in public. Would you know I was a gun owner? What about me would tell you I had a vault with 1,000 weapons and a million rounds of ammo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes a person having many guns any more dangerous than a person who owns one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More, less, who knows? But if you have 200 guns, you probably are just a tad bit obsessed. And personally, i don't feel being gun-obsessed is healthy. I'm a gun owner saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you STILL can't describe what a gun obsessed asshole looks or acts like.
> 
> The point is, if you saw me on the street, you would have no idea how many guns I had and more importantly, what I am likely to do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just giving you another side of the story. Most people don't see you having 200 guns as being normal. And like i said earlier, i sold guns for a time. I know gun owners better than most.
> 
> I got to a point where i did have to question whether or not many of them should have firearms. I soon got out of the gun selling business. I saw firsthand what gun-obsessed addicts look like. It's pretty ugly.
Click to expand...

I know gun owners probably as well as you. THEY are the kind of people I choose to associate with.
I suppose that everyone I know is a gun-obsessed asshole.

WHAT DO WE LOOK LIKE?

For Christ sake! Why the fuck is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question. I've seen you avoid answering a half dozen times. 

Do you have a comprehension problem?

Or what?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.




What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?  

It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
Click to expand...



The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......

That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.

And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you equate 'collecting' hundreds of firearms with collecting stamps, i probably can't help you. Don't know anyone who would be concerned with someone having hundreds of stamps. But hundreds of guns? Yeah, i think that could be of concern to many.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a person having many guns any more dangerous than a person who owns one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More, less, who knows? But if you have 200 guns, you probably are just a tad bit obsessed. And personally, i don't feel being gun-obsessed is healthy. I'm a gun owner saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you STILL can't describe what a gun obsessed asshole looks or acts like.
> 
> The point is, if you saw me on the street, you would have no idea how many guns I had and more importantly, what I am likely to do with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just giving you another side of the story. Most people don't see you having 200 guns as being normal. And like i said earlier, i sold guns for a time. I know gun owners better than most.
> 
> I got to a point where i did have to question whether or not many of them should have firearms. I soon got out of the gun selling business. I saw firsthand what gun-obsessed addicts look like. It's pretty ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know gun owners probably as well as you. THEY are the kind of people I choose to associate with.
> I suppose that everyone I know is a gun-obsessed asshole.
> 
> WHAT DO WE LOOK LIKE?
> 
> For Christ sake! Why the fuck is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question. I've seen you avoid answering a half dozen times.
> 
> Do you have a comprehension problem?
> 
> Or what?
Click to expand...


Never said all gun owners were gun-obsessed assholes. I'm a gun owner myself. I said too many are. And i know that because i used to sell guns. I know gun owners better than most do. Too many have an unhealthy obsession with guns. I found many of em to be very angry paranoid people. 

I'm just telling you my firsthand experiences selling guns. Many of them shouldn't have had firearms. I regret selling many of em guns. I eventually got out of the gun selling business.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
Click to expand...


We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
Click to expand...



The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.


----------



## SuperDemocrat

We can keep,a lot of guns out of the hands of criminals by baring democrats from having guns.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
Click to expand...


We live in very different times. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them to kill and maim Bambi is unwise and unnecessary. It's a brutal violent act. Teach em hunting when they become adults. We have to stop handing children firearms.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
Click to expand...


The culture problem is everywhere. Kids are exposed to so much violence these days. Let's not make it worse by continuing to hand them firearms. And i know that upsets hunters, but it is time for change. Some traditions need to pass.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in very different times. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them to kill and maim Bambi is unwise and unnecessary. It's a brutal violent act. Teach em hunting when they become adults. We have to stop handing children firearms.
Click to expand...



Yeah...it isn't the kids who were taught hunting that are going into their schools and shooting people, it isn't kids who are taught hunting doing drive bys every day....do you think those inner city gang bangers gear up for November deer season?  No....the problem is single teenage mothers and generations of children raising children with no mature adults teaching them to be civilized and how to not kill other people....


----------



## 2aguy

SuperDemocrat said:


> We can keep,a lot of guns out of the hands of criminals by baring democrats from having guns.




I have an article that points out that most of the gun murders occur in counties that voted for obama....


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
Click to expand...


It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....
> 
> That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems unnecessary nowadays.
> 
> Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
Click to expand...

Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
Click to expand...


Kids in the hood are not handed guns from their parents.  If they have guns, they get them from their friends.  The streets are loaded with hot weapons.  

The real problem is that these kids that get the guns have no idea what they have in their hands.  About five years ago, some 11 year old girl was shot to death by a 13 year old boy a few houses down from me.  He got his hands on a gun and had no idea if the weapon was loaded or not.  In fun, he pulled the trigger while aiming the gun at her.  

Drive by shootings are common in cities like mine.  Because the shooter has very limited (if any) experience with a gun, they don't realize that where you aim is not always where the bullet goes, and they end up killing innocent people on the sidewalk or even in their homes.  They have no idea what downrange is or means.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids in the hood are not handed guns from their parents.  If they have guns, they get them from their friends.  The streets are loaded with hot weapons.
> 
> The real problem is that these kids that get the guns have no idea what they have in their hands.  About five years ago, some 11 year old girl was shot to death by a 13 year old boy a few houses down from me.  He got his hands on a gun and had no idea if the weapon was loaded or not.  In fun, he pulled the trigger while aiming the gun at her.
> 
> Drive by shootings are common in cities like mine.  Because the shooter has very limited (if any) experience with a gun, they don't realize that where you aim is not always where the bullet goes, and they end up killing innocent people on the sidewalk or even in their homes.  They have no idea what downrange is or means.
Click to expand...


Let's not hand children firearms period. Let's start there.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
Click to expand...



You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....
> 
> That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems unnecessary nowadays.
> 
> Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
Click to expand...


Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
Click to expand...


Usually they steal them.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, but i also realize we do have problems. I mean, i just read about the kid who shot up his school recently. He left a note stating he wanted to be buried in his camo. His father used to dress him up in camo and taught him to enjoy killing and maiming. He was later arrested for illegally acquiring the firearm his son used in the massacre.
> 
> It's a culture problem. The kid was raised on violence. His father was a typical gun-obsessed asshole. He taught his child violence. We have to change our culture. We have to become less violent. We have to stop teaching children violence. Maybe stop handing children guns and teaching them how to kill and maim. I know that upsets hunters especially, but it is time to reconsider handing their children guns. We live in a very different time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids in the hood are not handed guns from their parents.  If they have guns, they get them from their friends.  The streets are loaded with hot weapons.
> 
> The real problem is that these kids that get the guns have no idea what they have in their hands.  About five years ago, some 11 year old girl was shot to death by a 13 year old boy a few houses down from me.  He got his hands on a gun and had no idea if the weapon was loaded or not.  In fun, he pulled the trigger while aiming the gun at her.
> 
> Drive by shootings are common in cities like mine.  Because the shooter has very limited (if any) experience with a gun, they don't realize that where you aim is not always where the bullet goes, and they end up killing innocent people on the sidewalk or even in their homes.  They have no idea what downrange is or means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not hand children firearms period. Let's start there.
Click to expand...

Look! Kids are going to be exposed to guns sooner or later. Why not supervise them when they first come in contact? Did you give your kid a bicycle and just turn him loose?


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
Click to expand...



And here...from Mother Jones........the problem is not mass shootings by suburban kids...the problem is the every day killing in inner cities......but, let's focus on everything but the actual problem...shall we....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014.....   9
2013.....   36
2012.....  72
2011.....  19


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.


----------



## 2aguy

Yeah...this girl isn't the problem....


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......
Click to expand...


The most heinous gun massacres have been carried out by gun-crazed white people for the most part. Most, if not all of the awful school shootings were carried out by white suburban nutball kids. But i'll ask again, how and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?


----------



## 2aguy

Yeah, this kid isn't the proble either....


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heinous gun massacres have been carried out by gun-crazed white people for the most part. Most, if not all of the awful school shootings were carried out by white suburban nutball kids. But i'll ask again, how and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
Click to expand...



Yeah...again....mass shooting deaths each year....under 100.........what accounts for the other 8,354 murders?  Gangs in cities and other criminals.......


----------



## jon_berzerk

have the leftists come with a plan yet 

that keeps firearms out of the hands of the criminals 


--LOL


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's different?  Men have taught their children how to hunt and obtain food for centuries; now it's a problem?
> 
> It's the same mentality that gets liberals to cry about violence on television.  We've always had violence on television.  Watch an episode or two of the Three Stooges or Gunsmoke sometime.  Why was it not a problem when I was a chid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
Click to expand...


Or their dumb parents gave em to them.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't teach children how to kill and maim with guns...Some teach their children how to provide food with their guns, and others teach children how to responsibly use guns, and others teach them how to use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Then, in democrat controlled cities, in single mother headed households, where a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl raised by a teenage girl has male children whose only adult male role models will be sociapaths in gangs....
> 
> That is the culture you need to change.....the others are just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems unnecessary nowadays.
> 
> Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
Click to expand...

Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heinous gun massacres have been carried out by gun-crazed white people for the most part. Most, if not all of the awful school shootings were carried out by white suburban nutball kids. But i'll ask again, how and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
Click to expand...



Yeah....mass shootings are not the problem.....they are rare and kill very few people...it is the daily shootings by gang members in inner cities that kill the most people...but of course that would mean dealing with unpleasant things, like the fact  that the shooters are mostly blacks killing other blacks....but back to the suburban kids....yeah, they are the problem....

And here...from Mother Jones........the problem is not mass shootings by suburban kids...the problem is the every day killing in inner cities......but, let's focus on everything but the actual problem...shall we....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heinous gun massacres have been carried out by gun-crazed white people for the most part. Most, if not all of the awful school shootings were carried out by white suburban nutball kids. But i'll ask again, how and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...again....mass shooting deaths each year....under 100.........what accounts for the other 8,354 murders?  Gangs in cities and other criminals.......
Click to expand...


What have we learned in all this?...

DON'T GIVE YOUR BLEEPIN KIDS GUNS!!!!!!!

Class dismissed.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not coming down on hunters only. Kids are being taught violence in general. But it is time for hunters to reconsider handing their children guns. Teaching them to kill and maim seems unnecessary nowadays.
> 
> Maybe when they become adults, you hand em a gun and teach them about hunting. But not when they're children. Society's already bombarding them enough with violence. Handing them a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi, is an ugly violent act. It's not necessary. Time to change our ways. No more promoting violence to children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
Click to expand...


You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue....single teenage mothers raising children....who have children who have children with no adult men or women modeling mature adult behavior.....do that generation after generation and you have what you have now in the democrat inner cities......
> 
> That is the gun culture that is the problem...everywhere else in this country guns are not a problem.
> 
> And that is why children in the past could watch the 3 stooges and play Army and then..not go to their school and shoot their classmates, or drive down their block at 15 and shoot other kids from different gangs......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or their dumb parents gave em to them.
Click to expand...


Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?


----------



## jon_berzerk

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
Click to expand...



depends really


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heinous gun massacres have been carried out by gun-crazed white people for the most part. Most, if not all of the awful school shootings were carried out by white suburban nutball kids. But i'll ask again, how and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....mass shootings are not the problem.....they are rare and kill very few people...it is the daily shootings by gang members in inner cities that kill the most people...but of course that would mean dealing with unpleasant things, like the fact  that the shooters are mostly blacks killing other blacks....but back to the suburban kids....yeah, they are the problem....
> 
> And here...from Mother Jones........the problem is not mass shootings by suburban kids...the problem is the every day killing in inner cities......but, let's focus on everything but the actual problem...shall we....
> 
> US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
> 
> Sooooo....
> 
> 
> US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
> 
> 
> 
> How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.
> 
> 2014..... 9
> 2013..... 36
> 2012..... 72
> 2011..... 19
> 
> 
> Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.
> 
> How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.
> 
> How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.
Click to expand...


How many children in America die from guns? Answer is, too many. Keep firearms away from them. Period, end of story.


----------



## Ernie S.

Or give them guns early. I got my first at 12.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> Or give them guns early. I got my first at 12.




me too 

shot my first deer with bow at 11


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
Click to expand...

Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a culture problem. We should stop handing children guns and promoting violence. When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they want to acquire a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or their dumb parents gave em to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?
Click to expand...


In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved. 

We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.


----------



## paulitician

jon_berzerk said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends really
Click to expand...


It shouldn't. Just wait till they're adults. Let them make their own decision on acquiring firearms.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or their dumb parents gave em to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
Click to expand...


Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.


----------



## Ernie S.

jon_berzerk said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or give them guns early. I got my first at 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me too
> 
> shot my first deer with bow at 11
Click to expand...

I never got into bow hunting. My one and only victim was a rabbit. I pinned the poor bunny to the base of a tree. Guns are far more humane, in my opinion.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
Click to expand...


In our state they give kids temporary drivers licenses at the age of 15 1/2.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The culture problem we have is in our inner cities....most of the 8,454 deaths happen because of career criminals located in small, multi block areas in these cities......focus on that and 90% of gun murder will be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that those are the least number of gun murders right?  That the most gun murders are by criminals in gangs in inner cities.......and that kids shooting up schools is tiny compared to the killing every day in these small, multi block areas in gang infested territory.  But let's focus on the non problem and ignore the real problem......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most heinous gun massacres have been carried out by gun-crazed white people for the most part. Most, if not all of the awful school shootings were carried out by white suburban nutball kids. But i'll ask again, how and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....mass shootings are not the problem.....they are rare and kill very few people...it is the daily shootings by gang members in inner cities that kill the most people...but of course that would mean dealing with unpleasant things, like the fact  that the shooters are mostly blacks killing other blacks....but back to the suburban kids....yeah, they are the problem....
> 
> And here...from Mother Jones........the problem is not mass shootings by suburban kids...the problem is the every day killing in inner cities......but, let's focus on everything but the actual problem...shall we....
> 
> US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
> 
> Sooooo....
> 
> 
> US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
> 
> 
> 
> How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.
> 
> 2014..... 9
> 2013..... 36
> 2012..... 72
> 2011..... 19
> 
> 
> Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.
> 
> How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.
> 
> How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many children in America die from guns? Answer is, too many. Keep firearms away from them. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...


How many kids under 14....die from guns....72 in 2013.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually mostly white suburban nutball kids who shoot up schools. How and where did they get their firearms to carry out their massacres?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or their dumb parents gave em to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
Click to expand...


Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same. More kids die from drowning and bicycle accidents than from gunshot wounds.
Swimming pools are far more dangerous than guns.

Did you just toss your kids in the pool and walk back inside?


----------



## paulitician

And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not the same. More kids die from drowning and bicycle accidents than from gunshot wounds.
> Swimming pools are far more dangerous than guns.
> 
> Did you just toss your kids in the pool and walk back inside?
Click to expand...


Yes, pools and bicycles are the same as guns. Must be.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Usually they steal them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or their dumb parents gave em to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
Click to expand...


Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not the same. More kids die from drowning and bicycle accidents than from gunshot wounds.
> Swimming pools are far more dangerous than guns.
> 
> Did you just toss your kids in the pool and walk back inside?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, pools and bicycles are the same as guns. Must be.
Click to expand...

They are vastly more dangerous, as I said. Can you not respond to to me and refrain from the irrelevant rhetoric?


----------



## paulitician

Let's stop making firearms so accessible to our children. If you want to teach your kids about hunting, wait till they're adults. Let them make decisions about acquiring firearms when they're adults. We need to change. The kids are getting guns too easily. Period, end of story.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?



How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or their dumb parents gave em to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
Click to expand...


Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.


----------



## jon_berzerk

paulitician said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't. Just wait till they're adults. Let them make their own decision on acquiring firearms.
Click to expand...



mine did well 

they still do well


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.
Click to expand...


See, now i am beginning to think you are a gun-obsessed nutter. Let's keep it simple. Stop giving kids guns. It's unwise and unnecessary.


----------



## Ernie S.

jon_berzerk said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't. Just wait till they're adults. Let them make their own decision on acquiring firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> mine did well
> 
> they still do well
Click to expand...

I have 3 children. All have concealed carry permits as does my wife.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't. Just wait till they're adults. Let them make their own decision on acquiring firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> mine did well
> 
> they still do well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have 3 children. All have concealed carry permits as does my wife.
Click to expand...


They're not children. They're adults. A kid shouldn't have a gun. Period, end of story.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Which mass shooting involved a parent giving the child a gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
Click to expand...


Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now i am beginning to think you are a gun-obsessed nutter. Let's keep it simple. Stop giving kids guns. It's unwise and unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Nobody is giving their kids guns. That's the point.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
Click to expand...


Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now i am beginning to think you are a gun-obsessed nutter. Let's keep it simple. Stop giving kids guns. It's unwise and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is giving their kids guns. That's the point.
Click to expand...


I've known many gun owners over the years. Like i said, i used to be a gun seller. And many gave their children firearms. They didn't think twice about it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now i am beginning to think you are a gun-obsessed nutter. Let's keep it simple. Stop giving kids guns. It's unwise and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is giving their kids guns. That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've known many gun owners over the years. Like i said, i used to be a gun seller. And many gave their children firearms. They didn't think twice about it.
Click to expand...


And apparently nothing happened, did it?


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most of the cases, the parents were the one's responsible for the child being exposed to the guns that were used in the massacres. If not the parents, some other adult was involved.
> 
> We need to change our approach to firearms completely. No more just handing a child a gun. I don't care if it's about hunting or not. Teach them hunting when they're adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
Click to expand...


Just because the gun wasn't in their name, doesn't mean they stole it. Sadly, many American parents give their kids guns all the time. Or they allow them access to their firearms.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now i am beginning to think you are a gun-obsessed nutter. Let's keep it simple. Stop giving kids guns. It's unwise and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is giving their kids guns. That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've known many gun owners over the years. Like i said, i used to be a gun seller. And many gave their children firearms. They didn't think twice about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And apparently nothing happened, did it?
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe not. Couldn't say for sure. But it's still absurd handing a child a firearm. Lots of other child activities out there that don't involve them possibly blowing their heads off. It's time for Americans to explore those instead.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, no, no.  Don't change my question for me.  I know where the guns came from.  What I asked is what parent openly gave a child a gun for a mass shooting.  There's a big difference between a parent "giving" a child a gun and him stealing a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.
Click to expand...


You're deflecting.  You know as well as I that none of these mass shootings had anything to do with a parent giving a maniac child a firearm.  And as the other poster pointed out, if you're so worried about child deaths, why not petition to have swimming outlawed?  As you stated, there are plenty of other different hobbies a child can be involved in, and way more children die from drowning than shootings.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deflecting.  You know as well as I that none of these mass shootings had anything to do with a parent giving a maniac child a firearm.  And as the other poster pointed out, if you're so worried about child deaths, why not petition to have swimming outlawed?  As you stated, there are plenty of other different hobbies a child can be involved in, and way more children die from drowning than shootings.
Click to expand...


Yes we know, swimming is the same as handing a child a firearm. Sure it is. See, that's why so many Americans are turning on gun owners. You guys give us all a bad name. You'll be the reason guns are eventually banned. But hey, i warned you. I tried to give you some of the other side's perspective. I did try.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depends really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't. Just wait till they're adults. Let them make their own decision on acquiring firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> mine did well
> 
> they still do well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have 3 children. All have concealed carry permits as does my wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're not children. They're adults. A kid shouldn't have a gun. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is the end of the story? Since when?


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?
> 
> Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted.
> 
> MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:
> 
> Fines increased Dramatically
> Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
> License Suspensions and Revocations
> Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
> Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
> Generally three years probation.
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners support arrest and long prison sentences for gun criminals and felons caught with guns...how is that different than what MADD does genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A first gun offense is a felony moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are a convicted felon you can never own a gun again....right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a felon you go into the federal data base for background checks already...right genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are caught with a gun you lose it...if you are a convicted criminal caught with a gun, you can be arrested on the spot....
> 
> So what exactly isn't the NRA doing to support all of these things that already happen....
> 
> Do you actually use your brain....?
Click to expand...


I do have and use a brain, a very good one in fact.  You, make up stuff to justify the opinions you've been indoctrinated to believe.  Most of what you posted is untrue.

You have no understanding of what MADD has done and continues to do.  They have lobbied the state legislatures across the nation into increasing penalties for drunk and impaired driving.

So have advocates for imposing sanctions for domestic abusers, not only do both groups lobby in state capitols, they sit in court in mass for sentencing hearings.

The NRA needs to protect the rights of legal gun owners, not object to every effort to reduce gun violence in America.  By doing the latter, they put all lawful gun owners at risk.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deflecting.  You know as well as I that none of these mass shootings had anything to do with a parent giving a maniac child a firearm.  And as the other poster pointed out, if you're so worried about child deaths, why not petition to have swimming outlawed?  As you stated, there are plenty of other different hobbies a child can be involved in, and way more children die from drowning than shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know, swimming is the same as handing a child a firearm. Sure it is. See, that's why so many Americans are turning on gun owners. You guys give us all a bad name. You'll be the reason guns are eventually banned. But hey, i warned you. I tried to give you some of the other side's perspective. I did try.
Click to expand...

But you never answered a friggin question.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deflecting.  You know as well as I that none of these mass shootings had anything to do with a parent giving a maniac child a firearm.  And as the other poster pointed out, if you're so worried about child deaths, why not petition to have swimming outlawed?  As you stated, there are plenty of other different hobbies a child can be involved in, and way more children die from drowning than shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we know, swimming is the same as handing a child a firearm. Sure it is. See, that's why so many Americans are turning on gun owners. You guys give us all a bad name. You'll be the reason guns are eventually banned. But hey, i warned you. I tried to give you some of the other side's perspective. I did try.
Click to expand...


The only way guns would ever be banned is if we voted in liberal Presidents for the next several elections and they stoked our Supreme Court with liberal judges.  Other than that, guns are here to stay no matter who thinks what of it. 

Yes, swimming is the same as guns if you look at it from the prospective of child deaths.  You just don't like the truthfulness of the comparison.  So perhaps child deaths is a red herring that you're using and you really don't care about child gun deaths.  Maybe you just don't like guns.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> I do have and use a brain, a very good one in fact.


It's a shame you only use it for a paper weight.


----------



## regent

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many adults in America provide their children with firearms. That's no secret. None of the kids who carried out massacres, could have done it without adults providing them the means. The firearms were accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deflecting.  You know as well as I that none of these mass shootings had anything to do with a parent giving a maniac child a firearm.  And as the other poster pointed out, if you're so worried about child deaths, why not petition to have swimming outlawed?  As you stated, there are plenty of other different hobbies a child can be involved in, and way more children die from drowning than shootings.
Click to expand...

So then are we worried about?


----------



## paulitician

I see a day when it will be illegal for a child to possess a firearm. That's where Society is headed. They can't smoke or drink alcohol. A child being allowed to possess a firearm will be considered shockingly bizarre to distant future generations.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it!  I've been attacked but no one has provided a rebuttal to my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is, of course, nothing but poo as I have, personally, soundly rebutted every argument you've made.
> Disagree?
> There's a link in my sig that allows you to continue the argument you whined and pleaded for but ran away from once you got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I not only disagree, I find your arrogance hysterically funny - your are either challenged by reality or one of those liars who denies  they ever put their hand in the cookie jar, even when shown a photo of them with their hand in the cookie jar.
Click to expand...


Dude, shooter is completely correct.  So far you've offere dick.  Which Lakhota keeps begging for


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> I see a day when it will be illegal for a child to possess a firearm. That's where Society is headed. They can't smoke or drink alcohol. A child being allowed to possess a firearm will be considered shockingly bizarre to distant future generations.



Um..OK?


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try this again: a kid stealing their parents guns and the parents providing the weapons are two entirely different things.  It seems to me the kids that learn about guns, use guns, and are respectful of guns are not the same kids that are shooting up the schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most if not all of the kids who carried out massacres, were exposed to firearms by adults. Some didn't have to steal the guns used in the shootings. They were allowed access to them. In many cases, the adults gave them the firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, then I'm calling you out:  which mass murder took place by a child where the parent gave them the firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, get your child into a different hobby. One that doesn't involve him or her possibly blowing their head off. Lots of other activities out there for kids. Time to explore those. Keep the guns for the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deflecting.  You know as well as I that none of these mass shootings had anything to do with a parent giving a maniac child a firearm.  And as the other poster pointed out, if you're so worried about child deaths, why not petition to have swimming outlawed?  As you stated, there are plenty of other different hobbies a child can be involved in, and way more children die from drowning than shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then are we worried about?
Click to expand...


Can you translate that sentence into English?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?
> 
> Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted.
> 
> MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:
> 
> Fines increased Dramatically
> Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
> License Suspensions and Revocations
> Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
> Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
> Generally three years probation.
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners support arrest and long prison sentences for gun criminals and felons caught with guns...how is that different than what MADD does genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A first gun offense is a felony moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are a convicted felon you can never own a gun again....right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a felon you go into the federal data base for background checks already...right genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are caught with a gun you lose it...if you are a convicted criminal caught with a gun, you can be arrested on the spot....
> 
> So what exactly isn't the NRA doing to support all of these things that already happen....
> 
> Do you actually use your brain....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have and use a brain, a very good one in fact.  You, make up stuff to justify the opinions you've been indoctrinated to believe.  Most of what you posted is untrue.
> 
> You have no understanding of what MADD has done and continues to do.  They have lobbied the state legislatures across the nation into increasing penalties for drunk and impaired driving.
> 
> So have advocates for imposing sanctions for domestic abusers, not only do both groups lobby in state capitols, they sit in court in mass for sentencing hearings.
> 
> The NRA needs to protect the rights of legal gun owners, not object to every effort to reduce gun violence in America.  By doing the latter, they put all lawful gun owners at risk.
Click to expand...



Our laws harm legal gun owners, honest citizens, they do nothing to restrict criminals from owning guns.  Then you say when the NRA fights to let us defend ourselves, they are causing the gun violence.  You're just blaming the victim.  How dare we defend ourselves!  That is the problem!  That's ridiculous, it's there Holmes.  They are reacting to it.   The NRA is a great organization.  You claim you have a brain.  Then you blame the victim.  You're an oxymoron, or just a regular one


----------



## jon_berzerk

still no plan 

--LOL


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching children where food comes from is not wrong.  Teaching them to provide for themselves is not wrong either......Why do you focus on normal people......put more effort into the democrat inner cities where they have gang breeding grounds and where you actually have real violence......every day.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.

Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> still no plan
> 
> --LOL



Wry's plan was to bull shit until there were enough posts that he could then claim he already presented one and it's your job to find it, not him


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many kids have put themselves in a precarious situation (and yes, even died) because of the internet?  Should we ban children from the internet too?  After all, the internet provides valuable information, but it can also be used for deviant things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now i am beginning to think you are a gun-obsessed nutter. Let's keep it simple. Stop giving kids guns. It's unwise and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is giving their kids guns. That's the point.
Click to expand...


Depends what they mean by kids.  I had multiple rifles and shotguns when I was 16-17


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
Click to expand...


No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> still no plan
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry's plan was to bull shit until there were enough posts that he could then claim he already presented one and it's your job to find it, not him
Click to expand...


thanks typical


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> depends really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't. Just wait till they're adults. Let them make their own decision on acquiring firearms.
Click to expand...


In your case, I agree with you.  If you teach your kids that guns are to be treated with hysterical fear, they probably aren't old enough to grasp that you are the one with the issue


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?




This is how many…


*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 72  ( in a country of 320 million people)


***************************************

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would  push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......*35,369*

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013..*.29,001*

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...*30,208*
Accidental drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 72  ( in a country of 320 million people)*


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

*2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505*
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have and use a brain, a very good one in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame you only use it for a paper weight.
Click to expand...


There's no evidence the weight of your brain would keep paper in place in even a mild breeze.  Of course if you had offered something of substance to the issue at hand, one might consider your comment as something other than the shtick of a failed comedian.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
Click to expand...


Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> still no plan
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry's plan was to bull shit until there were enough posts that he could then claim he already presented one and it's your job to find it, not him
Click to expand...


NO, my plan is to offer my opinion and to expose people like you as dishonest, lying assholes.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
Click to expand...


Are you a vegetarian?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> still no plan
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry's plan was to bull shit until there were enough posts that he could then claim he already presented one and it's your job to find it, not him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, my plan is to offer my opinion and to expose people like you as dishonest, lying assholes.  Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...


Yet you can't point to a single post you wrote where you wrote a serious proposal that we're not doing now, and failing at it, that would have an actual impact on my OP question.  Zero.  Not one proposal from you.  The closest you came to responding to the actual question at all was when you said we should give States the power to make choices, with no suggestion of what choices you think they should make.

As for showing who's the asshole, your wound was self inflicted.  Just so you know, the order is:

ready, aim, fire

You did fire, ready, aim

If you had learned about guns you would know that.  Your father should have done that when you were a kid


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?




This is it….


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)

youths, 1-14:     138


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like you'll address the question in my OP to facilitate an actual discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's another lie.  When did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, it always cracks me up how effective liberals are a committing logical fallacies and how terrible you are at identifying them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it!  I've been attacked but no one has provided a rebuttal to my arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is, of course, nothing but poo as I have, personally, soundly rebutted every argument you've made.
> Disagree?
> There's a link in my sig that allows you to continue the argument you whined and pleaded for but ran away from once you got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I not only disagree...
Click to expand...

I notice you did not continue the conversation that you ran away from.
This can only mean you understand your disagreement has no substance.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do those things without handing a child a gun and teaching em to kill and maim Bambi. And like i said, i'm not coming down on hunters only. But hunters do hand children guns and teach them violence. It is what it is.
> 
> I think it's fine to teach them about hunting when they become adults. But handing them firearms so early in life just seems unwise and unnecessary. We live in very different times. We have to accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
Click to expand...


No what's ridiculous, is handing a child a firearm. Teaching em how to kill Bambi can wait till they're adults. Teaching em such a brutal violent act at such a young age, is unwise and unnecessary. 

When they're adults they can decide for themselves if they wanna kill and maim defenseless animals for fun. Hopefully, they'll choose a different hobby. Hunting is for camo-wearing tiny-dicked pussies.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
Click to expand...


Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
Click to expand...


Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
Click to expand...


The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
Click to expand...


When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
Click to expand...

Why do you advocate child neglect?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what's ridiculous, is handing a child a firearm. Teaching em how to kill Bambi can wait till they're adults. Teaching em such a brutal violent act at such a young age, is unwise and unnecessary.
> 
> When they're adults they can decide for themselves if they wanna kill and maim defenseless animals for fun. Hopefully, they'll choose a different hobby. Hunting is for camo-wearing tiny-dicked pussies.
Click to expand...


Seriously, turn in your remote control.  Forcing kids to not touch guns is just stupid and is counter productive.  

You a vegetarian?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
Click to expand...


Let's not let kids ride in cars or play sports until they are 18 either.  They can get hurt.  Actually, they are way more likely to than with guns.  You're just completely ignorant and naive


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
Click to expand...


Clearly true.  He sits in his blue, urban apartment looking down on the rest of us


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
Click to expand...


ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
Click to expand...


Can you make a well formed argument why children shouldn't be able to use guns?  All you do is keep repeating your baseless assertion.  It's like saying children shouldn't be able to play video games.  Why make them go to their friends house and teach them to conceal things from you?  What kind of crappy parent are you?

I want to know that my kids respect guns and no how to use them safely.  As a parent, teaching them that is my job


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
Click to expand...


Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.

You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.
> 
> 
> 
> So how will you get the criminals to abide by the registration laws?  How will you keep the criminals from stealing firearms?  How will you keep the criminals from obtaining firearms in other countries and walking across our southern border with them?
> 
> People who actually think they can get criminals to obey gun laws are terminally obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal by definition does not obey the law.  Does your argument apply to all laws too?
> 
> Some law breakers/criminals can be dissuaded when the consequence for violation is severe, and many of us obey speed limits and other easily committed crimes because of their cost when cited/arrested and convicted.
> 
> MADD has been an effective organization in reducing drunk driving. During my career in LE we saw a dozen or more new sanctions for DUI introduced in CA and signed by the Governors, including:
> 
> Fines increased Dramatically
> Penalty Assessments Increased Dramatically
> License Suspensions and Revocations
> Jail Mandatory for a first conviction
> Longer Jail sentences for second and subsequent convictions
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> A one year attendance in an alcohol treatment program (one night a week) paid for by the convicted driver
> Generally three years probation.
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MADD is a good model to keep in mind and a likely force if the gun owners, NRA and the other gun organizations won't begin to police themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners support arrest and long prison sentences for gun criminals and felons caught with guns...how is that different than what MADD does genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A third DUI can be charged as a Felony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A first gun offense is a felony moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are a convicted felon you can never own a gun again....right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breathalyzers installed in registered vehicles on the driver's dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a felon you go into the federal data base for background checks already...right genius?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vehicle Impounded on first and subsequent arrests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are caught with a gun you lose it...if you are a convicted criminal caught with a gun, you can be arrested on the spot....
> 
> So what exactly isn't the NRA doing to support all of these things that already happen....
> 
> Do you actually use your brain....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have and use a brain, a very good one in fact.  You, make up stuff to justify the opinions you've been indoctrinated to believe.  Most of what you posted is untrue.
> 
> You have no understanding of what MADD has done and continues to do.  They have lobbied the state legislatures across the nation into increasing penalties for drunk and impaired driving.
> 
> So have advocates for imposing sanctions for domestic abusers, not only do both groups lobby in state capitols, they sit in court in mass for sentencing hearings.
> 
> The NRA needs to protect the rights of legal gun owners, not object to every effort to reduce gun violence in America.  By doing the latter, they put all lawful gun owners at risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Our laws harm legal gun owners, honest citizens, they do nothing to restrict criminals from owning guns.  Then you say when the NRA fights to let us defend ourselves, they are causing the gun violence.  You're just blaming the victim.  How dare we defend ourselves!  That is the problem!  That's ridiculous, it's there Holmes.  They are reacting to it.   The NRA is a great organization.  You claim you have a brain.  Then you blame the victim.  You're an oxymoron, or just a regular one
Click to expand...

If there were no guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, gun deaths would eventually decrease...... When we were all dead.
See? Rye Drinker is right!


----------



## paulitician

Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.



Are you a vegetarian?


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> still no plan
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry's plan was to bull shit until there were enough posts that he could then claim he already presented one and it's your job to find it, not him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, my plan is to offer my opinion and to expose people like you as dishonest, lying assholes.  Mission accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you can't point to a single post you wrote where you wrote a serious proposal that we're not doing now, and failing at it, that would have an actual impact on my OP question.  Zero.  Not one proposal from you.  The closest you came to responding to the actual question at all was when you said we should give States the power to make choices, with no suggestion of what choices you think they should make.
> 
> As for showing who's the asshole, your wound was self inflicted.  Just so you know, the order is:
> 
> ready, aim, fire
> 
> You did fire, ready, aim
> 
> If you had learned about guns you would know that.  Your father should have done that when you were a kid
Click to expand...

wry 

is still simply running around in circles


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
Click to expand...


In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.


There hasn't been any "reason" in anything you said.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bambi is FOOD, dammit. I was taught gun safety and use, starting when I was 8 years old. I started hunting at 12.... got my first deer at 14. I've never shot a man not robbed a convenience store.
> One of the most important lessons I ever learned was when my father showed me a deer he had shot in the head with a 12 gauge slug.
> Everything above the eyes was gone. I saw optic nerves and half a brain.
> I was 7 if I remember correctly. I learned the power of weapons and the reality of death. Real life was nothing like the westerns I watched on TV.
> Growing up, there was always a rifle or shotgun by the back door. We shot food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Killing and maiming Bambi is unwise and unnecessary nowadays. It only serves to teach the child ugly brutal violence. I'm fine with teaching them about hunting when they're adults. But for God's sake, stop handing guns to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No what's ridiculous, is handing a child a firearm. Teaching em how to kill Bambi can wait till they're adults. Teaching em such a brutal violent act at such a young age, is unwise and unnecessary.
> 
> When they're adults they can decide for themselves if they wanna kill and maim defenseless animals for fun. Hopefully, they'll choose a different hobby. Hunting is for camo-wearing tiny-dicked pussies.
Click to expand...

Still with the Bambi crap. I think I'll have some venison for dinner.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
Click to expand...


Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
Click to expand...


Right, so you having someone else kill your meat for you is what makes you civil


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
Click to expand...

The BSA offers a rifle and shotgun merit badge -- why do you hate the BSA?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been any "reason" in anything you said.
Click to expand...


Like i said, a Gun Nut is like an average Drug Addict or Alcoholic. So caught up in their addiction, they lose all sense of reason. It's all about the guns, bullets, killing, maiming, and so on...


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been any "reason" in anything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, a Gun Nut is like an average Drug Addict or Alcoholic. So caught up in their addiction, they lose all sense of reason. It's all about the guns, bullets, killing, maiming, and so on...
Click to expand...


There are people addicted to everything.  That isn't an argument


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> 
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
Click to expand...


Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been any "reason" in anything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, a Gun Nut is like an average Drug Addict or Alcoholic. So caught up in their addiction, they lose all sense of reason. It's all about the guns, bullets, killing, maiming, and so on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people addicted to everything.  That isn't an argument
Click to expand...


I sold guns at one point. I saw too many Gun-addicted Nuts out there. I don't want them handing their children firearms. I truly regret selling so many their firearms. Many of them just shouldn't have had guns.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
Click to expand...

You've never hunted, have you?
Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been any "reason" in anything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like i said, a Gun Nut is like an average Drug Addict or Alcoholic. So caught up in their addiction, they lose all sense of reason. It's all about the guns, bullets, killing, maiming, and so on...
Click to expand...

Or in your case:   Lying to yourself and others.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
Click to expand...


Begging the question


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
Click to expand...


Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury. 

Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous.  You want to teach them to respect guns when they are young.  I hunted after school in high school with friends.  We respected guns.
> 
> Seriously, you watch too much TV and you take what you see WAY too seriously.  Liberal talking heads know nothing about actual gun owners, you need to stop  listening to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
Click to expand...


He once touched a gun, he squealed and giggled and asked if he could touch it again, but the second time was too scary so he didn't


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
Click to expand...


Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.

As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching your kids to shoot; in fact, not doing so is neglect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
Click to expand...

Children WILL eventually be exposed to firearms. I saw to it that mine were well aware that guns in real life were not like playing a video game and that there were no extra lives.
I taught them that BEFORE they were exposed outside of my control. My sons saw deer and bear that had been shot. They saw the graphic results of a gunshot wound They helped dress and cut meat.
I did not protect or insulate them from reality and send them out into the real world ill prepared.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.



What about publicly flamboyant gays, are they an embarrassment that should be addressed by all gays?  Or is it just gun owners who need to answer for the whack jobs?


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Children WILL eventually be exposed to firearms. I saw to it that mine were well aware that guns in real life were not like playing a video game and that there were no extra lives.
> I taught them that BEFORE they were exposed outside of my control. My sons saw deer and bear that had been shot. They saw the graphic results of a gunshot wound They helped dress and cut meat.
> I did not protect or insulate them from reality and send them out into the real world ill prepared.
Click to expand...


Exactly, parenting is a job for parents.  Polly thinks it's a job for government


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He once touched a gun, he squealed and giggled and asked if he could touch it again, but the second time was too scary so he didn't
Click to expand...


Ha, i've been around guns all my life and even sold em for a time. I know Gun Nuts when i see em. They're no different than your average Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They ain't right. I regret selling so many to people who probably shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about publicly flamboyant gays, are they an embarrassment that should be addressed by all gays?  Or is it just gun owners who need to answer for the whack jobs?
Click to expand...


Dude, back to the gay thing again? Seriously, what's up with that?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He once touched a gun, he squealed and giggled and asked if he could touch it again, but the second time was too scary so he didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, i've been around guns all my life and even sold em for a time. I know Gun Nuts when i see em. They're no different than your average Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They ain't right. I regret selling so many to people who probably shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms.
Click to expand...


Clearly that's a lie since you think gun totters are all camo-clad extremists, or are you a camo clad extremist?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about publicly flamboyant gays, are they an embarrassment that should be addressed by all gays?  Or is it just gun owners who need to answer for the whack jobs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, back to the gay thing again? Seriously, what's up with that?
Click to expand...


You never answered it, why don't you do that once?  You demand all gun owners answer for the gun extremists, do you call on all gays to answer for gay extremists or are you a hypocrite?


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
Click to expand...

Ah.
The problem here isn't gun owners -- it's your bigotry.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
Click to expand...


I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.


----------



## Ernie S.

Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful


----------



## Ernie S.

Well, gotta go hunt for money.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.
> The problem here isn't gun owners -- it's your bigotry.
Click to expand...


I get the sense you're one of those camo-wearing Gun Nuts. You defend and justify it like a Drug Addict and Alcoholic defends and justifies their addictions. And Hunting is anything but 'Sport.' It's a brutal massacre. The innocent defenseless animals y'all hunt have no chance. You guys really do piss me off. You give Gun Owners a bad name.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.
> The problem here isn't gun owners -- it's your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the sense you're one of those camo-wearing Gun Nuts.
Click to expand...

Because...  you're a bigot.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful



You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.
> The problem here isn't gun owners -- it's your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the sense you're one of those camo-wearing Gun Nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because...  you're a bigot.
Click to expand...


Nah, i just know Gun Nuts when i see em. Been around em for many years. I was in the gun selling business for a time. Y'all are no different than Drug Addicts or Alcoholics. You have a problem.


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.
> The problem here isn't gun owners -- it's your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the sense you're one of those camo-wearing Gun Nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because...  you're a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah...i just know Gun Nuts when i see em
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
Click to expand...


Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.
> The problem here isn't gun owners -- it's your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get the sense you're one of those camo-wearing Gun Nuts. You defend and justify it like a Drug Addict and Alcoholic defends and justifies their addictions. And Hunting is anything but 'Sport.' It's a brutal massacre. The innocent defenseless animals y'all hunt have no chance. You guys really do piss me off. You give Gun Owners a bad name.
Click to expand...


I get the sense you're one of the flamboyant gay extremists who embarrasses all gays, is that why you won't address that point?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
Click to expand...


You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.

You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you make a well formed argument why children shouldn't be able to use guns?  All you do is keep repeating your baseless assertion.  It's like saying children shouldn't be able to play video games.  Why make them go to their friends house and teach them to conceal things from you?  What kind of crappy parent are you?
> 
> I want to know that my kids respect guns and no how to use them safely.  As a parent, teaching them that is my job
Click to expand...


Do you do the same with alcohol, tobacco and fire works?


----------



## regent

I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA. 
Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.


Is there a point to all this?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they become adults, they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms or shoot & maim defenseless animals. It'll be their call. An adult decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
Click to expand...


No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.




An then there are those whose lives have been save by them…..who survive horrible attacks, by violent monsters an the gun mae the inference.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you make a well formed argument why children shouldn't be able to use guns?  All you do is keep repeating your baseless assertion.  It's like saying children shouldn't be able to play video games.  Why make them go to their friends house and teach them to conceal things from you?  What kind of crappy parent are you?
> 
> I want to know that my kids respect guns and no how to use them safely.  As a parent, teaching them that is my job
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you do the same with alcohol, tobacco and fire works?
Click to expand...


No, they aren't safe when used properly like guns are.

I don't give any kid any access they want, it's something that builds up over years.  The younger they are, the more closely supervised they are.  And like giving them car keys, you don't give it to them if they don't earn trust.  But cars are a lot more dangerous to teenagers than guns are.  Do you make your kids wait until they are adults to drive a car?  Or do you start them out and teach them to use them safely?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An then there are those whose lives have been save by them…..who survive horrible attacks, by violent monsters an the gun mae the inference.
Click to expand...


Yes, cigarettes, alcohol and fireworks don't save lives


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
Click to expand...


Yes, you were begging the question, you are assuming the truth of your own position.  Your question was a faulty analogy the way it was used.

I used it in a completely different context.  Some kids are drawn to them because they are taboo.  You changed the context and continued to use the analogy falsely


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.



If you knew all these people in "a western state" and the biggest thing that struck you were the gun nuts, then you are lying your ass off, you didn't have that experience.  I grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan (source of "kaz")  We had friends who were hunters, many of the parents were veterans of Korea and Vietnam.  Guns are taken very seriously.  Back then when you left Kalamazoo, you were in the country.  It has grown a lot since then.  Guns were just around.  Unlike your inner city snob stereotyping of guns, "guns" weren't generally a topic of discussion.  Hunting, shooting, those were.  Guns are a tool.

My best friend in high school's brother came back from an afternoon hunting trip once.  My friend, his father and I were talking.  He came up and talked about something he was hunting.  His father was a pilot in Vietnam.  I saw him get angry once in my life.  This was the time.  The son answered, "I think it was..."  His father turned purple, grounded him and removed his gun rights for months.  He said you never shoot at anything unless you KNOW what it is.  That's the culture.  Obviously you don't know that, your story is bull


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.



So what's wrong with people who love guns?  How are they different than people like Jay Leno who loves and collects antique cars?  Or how about people that are obsessed with coins?  Once I had a close friend obsessed with guitars.  He had a bedroom with over $100,000 worth of guitars.  I've even met one lady who was obsessed with tropical birds.  

You don't understand this fascination with guns, yet you think you know the mentality of those who are.  The first gun I bought was from the father of a friend of mine.  He had a whole basement full of guns and ammo.  He was an older retired guy who used to sell them at flea markets and gun shows.  There wasn't a gun made that he couldn't give you a ten minute lecture on.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
Click to expand...


Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> I lived in a western state for some thirty years



Just curious, I never get people who don't want to name States as if you're in witness protection or something.  Is there a mob hit out on you?  Are you thinking you've given too many clues and one more and they'll get you?


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a point to all this?
Click to expand...


Yes, he's a liberal inner city snob who think gun owners were all the guys in Deliverance.  He knows because he lived in a State he is afraid to name.  It was probably Portland, Oregon.  Now that's liberaltopia

Let's just you just drop them pants.  You're going to squeal like a pig...


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.  Fortunately for Polly, if someone kills the animal he eats for him they get the bad karma, not him. There's always a loop hole


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you hunt for food, or the simple pleasure of killing one of God's creations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go with the latter. Handing a child a firearm and teaching them such a brutal senseless act is just so unwise and unnecessary. There are many other child activities out there for them to get into. Dressing em up in camo and teaching them to kill & maim defenseless animals, shouldn't be one of em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
Click to expand...


I have a lot of friends that fish.  They don't need to fish to survive, they just enjoy fishing and eating their kill.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking with Gun Nuts about guns is like talking to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics about their problems. They're in denial. They take it personally and resent you for trying to speak reason with em. Their guns & bullets are like a crack addict's crack. You can't get through to em. But sometimes it's ok to try.
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been any "reason" in anything you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, a Gun Nut is like an average Drug Addict or Alcoholic. So caught up in their addiction, they lose all sense of reason. It's all about the guns, bullets, killing, maiming, and so on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are people addicted to everything.  That isn't an argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sold guns at one point. I saw too many Gun-addicted Nuts out there. I don't want them handing their children firearms. I truly regret selling so many their firearms. Many of them just shouldn't have had guns.
Click to expand...


No, you don't know any gun nuts.  You know people that set your paranoia off making you think they were gun nuts.  In fact, you've even leveled that accusation on most everybody else on this thread.  

You remind me of those people in race discussion topics that think everybody is a racist because they don't like the big eared clown in the White House.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with people who love guns?  How are they different than people like Jay Leno who loves and collects antique cars?  Or how about people that are obsessed with coins?  Once I had a close friend obsessed with guitars.  He had a bedroom with over $100,000 worth of guitars.  I've even met one lady who was obsessed with tropical birds.
> 
> You don't understand this fascination with guns, yet you think you know the mentality of those who are.  The first gun I bought was from the father of a friend of mine.  He had a whole basement full of guns and ammo.  He was an older retired guy who used to sell them at flea markets and gun shows.  There wasn't a gun made that he couldn't give you a ten minute lecture on.
Click to expand...


I have a gun collection.  I am the oldest on both sides of my family, so the guns pretty much went from both sides to me as my prior generation family members died.  The oldest are a civil war gun and bayonet.  I have revolvers, rifles and shotguns.  The collection I don't shoot anymore.  My old shotguns even if I did want to shoot require lead pellets.  The steel ones they make now would shred them.  I wouldn't shoot them now anyway, I don't want to damage them.  They are decades, many almost a century old.  When I was a kid though I did shoot them, I didn't think, about posterity then, they were just free guns.  I got the most valuable ones, like the civil war gun, later when I was in my 20s.  One is a ten gauge shotgun, wow, that was a kick.

My mother never talked to me about guns, but when my grandfather and uncle died for example she got the guns and gave them to me.  My brother was more interested in coins, he has a nice coin collection.  Interestingly he's the one who went into the military, he went to the Naval Academy and was in Gulf War I.  You never know how these things will turn out....

I love the collection though.  It also reminds me of my family.  Of course on Friday nights I like to put on my camos and hang out in front of Pollyticians house.  Spooks the crap out of him and cracks me up.  Win-win!  Don't tell him it's me though


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with people who love guns?  How are they different than people like Jay Leno who loves and collects antique cars?  Or how about people that are obsessed with coins?  Once I had a close friend obsessed with guitars.  He had a bedroom with over $100,000 worth of guitars.  I've even met one lady who was obsessed with tropical birds.
> 
> You don't understand this fascination with guns, yet you think you know the mentality of those who are.  The first gun I bought was from the father of a friend of mine.  He had a whole basement full of guns and ammo.  He was an older retired guy who used to sell them at flea markets and gun shows.  There wasn't a gun made that he couldn't give you a ten minute lecture on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a gun collection.  I am the oldest on both sides of my family, so the guns pretty much went from both sides to me as my prior generation family members died.  The oldest are a civil war gun and bayonet.  I have revolvers, rifles and shotguns.  The collection I don't shoot anymore.  My old shotguns even if I did want to shoot require lead pellets.  The steel ones they make now would shred them.  I wouldn't shoot them now anyway, I don't want to damage them.  They are decades, many almost a century old.  When I was a kid though I did shoot them, I didn't think, about posterity then, they were just free guns.  I got the most valuable ones, like the civil war gun, later when I was in my 20s.  One is a ten gauge shotgun, wow, that was a kick.
> 
> My mother never talked to me about guns, but when my grandfather and uncle died for example she got the guns and gave them to me.  My brother was more interested in coins, he has a nice coin collection.  Interestingly he's the one who went into the military, he went to the Naval Academy and was in Gulf War I.  You never know how these things will turn out....
> 
> I love the collection though.  It also reminds me of my family.  Of course on Friday nights I like to put on my camos and hang out in front of Pollyticians house.  Spooks the crap out of him and cracks me up.  Win-win!  Don't tell him it's me though
Click to expand...


Lol.  I'm not much of a gun collector.  I have a few for protection.  It's kind of expensive to go shooting all the time.  Ammo is an arm and a leg at the end of the day. 

But I do know people like yourself who do buy and collect guns.  Nothing wrong with that. It's like what a friend of mine told me: you don't ever lose money on guns.  Most always go up in value if anything.  

Just like you never see any mass shootings from kids that were handed guns to them by their parents, you seldom (if at all) see any mass shootings from people that had a large gun collection or had an obsession with guns.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it unwise? I happen to like venison. It is necessary that I shoot a deer in order for me to eat venison.
> Ugly brutal violence is all around us AND our kids. Guns don't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
> Toss violent people in prison for life for all I care but leave people who engage in a legal hobby and exercise their God given rights the fuck alone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
Click to expand...



Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...

Under 1:   68

5-14:  425

15-24:  6,968


Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69

Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
Click to expand...



148....out of 320 million people....really?  That is your come back?  over 320 million guns in private hands?  That is incredibly responsible for the number of guns out there.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 148....out of 320 million people....really?  That is your come back?  over 320 million guns in private hands?  That is incredibly responsible for the number of guns out there.
Click to expand...


Now he's going to come back with that one child is too many.  Our response is one murder which could have been prevented is too many and gun laws should be eliminated.

I like how liberals argue the are smarter because they are not all black and white like we are while proving they are black and white to the absurdly extreme


----------



## regent

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew all these people in "a western state" and the biggest thing that struck you were the gun nuts, then you are lying your ass off, you didn't have that experience.  I grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan (source of "kaz")  We had friends who were hunters, many of the parents were veterans of Korea and Vietnam.  Guns are taken very seriously.  Back then when you left Kalamazoo, you were in the country.  It has grown a lot since then.  Guns were just around.  Unlike your inner city snob stereotyping of guns, "guns" weren't generally a topic of discussion.  Hunting, shooting, those were.  Guns are a tool.
> 
> My best friend in high school's brother came back from an afternoon hunting trip once.  My friend, his father and I were talking.  He came up and talked about something he was hunting.  His father was a pilot in Vietnam.  I saw him get angry once in my life.  This was the time.  The son answered, "I think it was..."  His father turned purple, grounded him and removed his gun rights for months.  He said you never shoot at anything unless you KNOW what it is.  That's the culture.  Obviously you don't know that, your story is bull
Click to expand...

I have fond memories of Michigan, from Three Rivers to Battle Creek and my discharge from Percy Jones, but I lived in a northwestern state that had hunters galore and I had  little patience with those that seemed to have a love affair with guns. Why guns seemed to mean so much to some, I never understood. To others they were  just another tool, maybe a little more valuable than the toilet plunger but just another appliance that needed more upkeep. I think the NRA uses this love to keep the money coming in.
I just gave away my last gun, a Japanese Ariska with bayonet,


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew all these people in "a western state" and the biggest thing that struck you were the gun nuts, then you are lying your ass off, you didn't have that experience.  I grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan (source of "kaz")  We had friends who were hunters, many of the parents were veterans of Korea and Vietnam.  Guns are taken very seriously.  Back then when you left Kalamazoo, you were in the country.  It has grown a lot since then.  Guns were just around.  Unlike your inner city snob stereotyping of guns, "guns" weren't generally a topic of discussion.  Hunting, shooting, those were.  Guns are a tool.
> 
> My best friend in high school's brother came back from an afternoon hunting trip once.  My friend, his father and I were talking.  He came up and talked about something he was hunting.  His father was a pilot in Vietnam.  I saw him get angry once in my life.  This was the time.  The son answered, "I think it was..."  His father turned purple, grounded him and removed his gun rights for months.  He said you never shoot at anything unless you KNOW what it is.  That's the culture.  Obviously you don't know that, your story is bull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have fond memories of Michigan, from Three Rivers to Battle Creek and my discharge from Percy Jones, but I lived in a northwestern state that had hunters galore and I had  little patience with those that seemed to have a love affair with guns. Why guns seemed to mean so much to some, I never understood. To others they were  just another tool, maybe a little more valuable than the toilet plunger but just another appliance that needed more upkeep. I think the NRA uses this love to keep the money coming in.
> I just gave away my last gun, a Japanese Ariska with bayonet,
Click to expand...



J.R.R. Tolkien explained it really well...




*“I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”*

― J.R.R. Tolkien, _The Two Towers_
tags: faramir

That is really what it is about.....guns allow the weak to fight and beat the strong who are evil.......that is all you need to know...


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we let children do anything then?  They should not do anything until they are adults so they can decide for themselves.
> 
> You don't get the concept of parents do you Holmes?  It's government's job to raise our children.   And they are so good at it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
Thanks for the entertainment.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew all these people in "a western state" and the biggest thing that struck you were the gun nuts, then you are lying your ass off, you didn't have that experience.  I grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan (source of "kaz")  We had friends who were hunters, many of the parents were veterans of Korea and Vietnam.  Guns are taken very seriously.  Back then when you left Kalamazoo, you were in the country.  It has grown a lot since then.  Guns were just around.  Unlike your inner city snob stereotyping of guns, "guns" weren't generally a topic of discussion.  Hunting, shooting, those were.  Guns are a tool.
> 
> My best friend in high school's brother came back from an afternoon hunting trip once.  My friend, his father and I were talking.  He came up and talked about something he was hunting.  His father was a pilot in Vietnam.  I saw him get angry once in my life.  This was the time.  The son answered, "I think it was..."  His father turned purple, grounded him and removed his gun rights for months.  He said you never shoot at anything unless you KNOW what it is.  That's the culture.  Obviously you don't know that, your story is bull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have fond memories of Michigan, from Three Rivers to Battle Creek and my discharge from Percy Jones, but I lived in a northwestern state that had hunters galore and I had  little patience with those that seemed to have a love affair with guns. Why guns seemed to mean so much to some, I never understood. To others they were  just another tool, maybe a little more valuable than the toilet plunger but just another appliance that needed more upkeep. I think the NRA uses this love to keep the money coming in.
> I just gave away my last gun, a Japanese Ariska with bayonet,
Click to expand...

I have an Arisaka... I've killed a lot of deer with that one.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start being a good parent by not handing your child a firearm. That's a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
Click to expand...


You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
Click to expand...

What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
Click to expand...


Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.

Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.


----------



## regent

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in a western state for some thirty years, during that time I got to know the various varieties of gun-people pretty well. The one variety that bothered me was the lovers of guns.
> To me, guns they were just objects, some quite well made but still just a tool for one use and that was killing things. Some expressed the sentiment that their family would not go hungry as long as they had that super expensive rifle. Yet it seemed to me that venison or other wild meat once on the table cost about fifty times the value of just going to the market and buying a tasty product.
> Some of my friends would insist on showing me their arsenal every visit, and I would ooh and ah for them. Most all had the standard arguments for the necessity of guns as put forth by the NRA.
> Did I own guns? Yep off and on but never adored them nor felt my life depended on them, they were just guns, guns meant to kill things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew all these people in "a western state" and the biggest thing that struck you were the gun nuts, then you are lying your ass off, you didn't have that experience.  I grew up in Kalamazoo, Michigan (source of "kaz")  We had friends who were hunters, many of the parents were veterans of Korea and Vietnam.  Guns are taken very seriously.  Back then when you left Kalamazoo, you were in the country.  It has grown a lot since then.  Guns were just around.  Unlike your inner city snob stereotyping of guns, "guns" weren't generally a topic of discussion.  Hunting, shooting, those were.  Guns are a tool.
> 
> My best friend in high school's brother came back from an afternoon hunting trip once.  My friend, his father and I were talking.  He came up and talked about something he was hunting.  His father was a pilot in Vietnam.  I saw him get angry once in my life.  This was the time.  The son answered, "I think it was..."  His father turned purple, grounded him and removed his gun rights for months.  He said you never shoot at anything unless you KNOW what it is.  That's the culture.  Obviously you don't know that, your story is bull
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have fond memories of Michigan, from Three Rivers to Battle Creek and my discharge from Percy Jones, but I lived in a northwestern state that had hunters galore and I had  little patience with those that seemed to have a love affair with guns. Why guns seemed to mean so much to some, I never understood. To others they were  just another tool, maybe a little more valuable than the toilet plunger but just another appliance that needed more upkeep. I think the NRA uses this love to keep the money coming in.
> I just gave away my last gun, a Japanese Ariska with bayonet,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have an Arisaka... I've killed a lot of deer with that one.
Click to expand...

I guess the chrysanthemum was the biggie on those rifles, if it had been removed it was of less value because it no longer belonged to the Emperor.


----------



## Ernie S.

Mine has it, but it's in a different stock and the bolt has been dropped. it still groups 2" at 200 yards


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
Click to expand...


So when every time there's a shooting Obama is the first slut behind a microphone followed by the who's who of leftists, that's us celebrating shootings.  What an idiot you are.  Seriously


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.



for your own sake, grow a pair and be man enough to speak for yourself rather than creating in your mind legions of non-existant followers who hang on your every word.

I is a far more powerful word than we.  We means you don't have enough masculinity to stand on your own, I means you do


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
Click to expand...


Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is.  Teaching them to respect guns and know how to use it is my job, no one else's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Handing a child a firearm does not a 'good parent' make. Why not just hand them some cigarettes and alcohol too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Begging the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
Click to expand...

Nor does it bother you in the slightest that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, i've observed very few if any camo-wearing tiny-dicked hunters hunting to survive. They kill and maim for fun. They're sick fucks. And they're pussies too.
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
Click to expand...


Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.
Click to expand...


Flaming, flamboyant faggots.  Ass obsessed assholes.  They're why many Americans don't give a shit about gay marriage


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
Click to expand...


Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy too. 

Dressed in camo head to toe waiting to ambush a defenseless animal that has no chance. It's no sport. It's a bloody massacre. Sick cowardice.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.
Click to expand...

Describe a gun obsessed asshole. How would I recognize him in a crowd?


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.
Click to expand...



actually...new poll out...60% of Americans don't think gun control is the answer to mass shootings......,,,,

if the left would stop lying about guns that number would be higher.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy too. Dressed in camo head to toe waiting to ambush a defenseless animal that has no chance. It's no sport. It's a bloody massacre. Cowardly.
Click to expand...



do you eat meat?


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy.
Click to expand...

I hunt. That is a personal choice. I think that a man that relies on others to kill his food is a tiny-dicked little pussy.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
Click to expand...


Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never hunted, have you?
> Have you ever collected anything? Done anything that would make you self sufficient? Have you ever accomplished something that took a great deal of effort?
> There is no joy in taking an animal. There *is* a sense of accomplishment and some pride that all the training and practice has paid off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.
Click to expand...



Here it is...60% of Americans are actually using their brains....

Poll: 60% say gun control won't stop violence, 54% blame social media


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
Click to expand...


I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
Click to expand...



would like to see that....and when they put you in the hospital I will laugh my ass off...


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
Click to expand...


*
he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs.*

we process our own good stuff


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an adult, so go hunting. I'm talking about children. Wait till they're adults before handing them a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
Click to expand...


----------



## 2aguy

jon_berzerk said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I always tell the gun grabbers...get rid of your car..and buy a gun..you will be safer...

and if you look at the CDC..I would recommend people learn how to float in the air since falling deaths are far worse than accidental gun deaths too....


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
Click to expand...


Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy too.



You have no long term memory, do you Holmes?  I'm a vegetarian.  Also, you have yet to explain why someone shredding a cow for you is OK by you while someone killing their own game you consider sick.  



paulitician said:


> Dressed in camo head to toe waiting to ambush a defenseless animal that has no chance. It's no sport. It's a bloody massacre. Sick cowardice.



And the cows that get shredded for you and the chickens they strip and deep fry for you have what chance exactly?

You eat animals, then you whine about all this?  You're a flaming hypocrite


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you wait until your kids were adults before you taught then to swim? Let them ride a bike?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
Click to expand...



Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....

do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Describe a gun obsessed asshole. How would I recognize him in a crowd?
Click to expand...


Well, take Pollytician and imagine them obsessed with guns instead of assholes like he is and there you go.  He wears camo, you know, he just accessorizes it with fishnet stockings, a pink boa and a nut sack


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 148....out of 320 million people....really?  That is your come back?  over 320 million guns in private hands?  That is incredibly responsible for the number of guns out there.
Click to expand...


Why are so many American children getting access to firearms? How is it happening so easily? Think about it for a bit.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hunt. That is a personal choice. I think that a man that relies on others to kill his food is a tiny-dicked little pussy.
Click to expand...


Polly is civilized, someone kills his mean for him


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause that's the same thing. Come on man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
Click to expand...


Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
Click to expand...


Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we haven't even begun to discuss how many children die from guns accidentally. Or kids committing suicide with guns. How and why are children accessing firearms so easily? What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is it….
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> 
> Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74)
> 
> youths, 1-14:     138
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number should be zero. Children shouldn't have access to firearms period. How are they getting the firearms so easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 148....out of 320 million people....really?  That is your come back?  over 320 million guns in private hands?  That is incredibly responsible for the number of guns out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are so many American children getting access to firearms? How is it happening so easily? Think about it for a bit.
Click to expand...


It's not happening so easily.  I think that was his point.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
Click to expand...



dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...

How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
Click to expand...


Sure, I'll just explain to my kids that they need to wait until they are 18 to learn to use guns safely to make elitist liberal snobs happy, they'll totally buy that...


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hunt. That is a personal choice. I think that a man that relies on others to kill his food is a tiny-dicked little pussy.
Click to expand...


Nah, only tiny-dicked little pussies enjoy killing & maiming an animal that has no chance to defend itself. Find another hobby.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
Click to expand...


Trying to shoot a pheasant is a real trick


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
Click to expand...



Accidental gun deaths of children in 2013.... 69........out of a country of over 320 million people......guns are not the problem.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hunt. That is a personal choice. I think that a man that relies on others to kill his food is a tiny-dicked little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, only tiny-dicked little pussies enjoy killing & maiming an animal that has no chance to defend itself. Find another hobby.
Click to expand...


Ah, I get it now, you want a big dick


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not the same thing, it's even more important.  Guns aren't magic firing sticks, they are tools to be respected and kids need to be taught to use them safely.  The earlier you start that the better.  Telling them they can't touch them until they are 18 makes them like alcohol or cigarettes, something to do if you want to be bad.  It's the total wrong message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
Click to expand...


Stop giving them bicycles and swimming pools.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like other people to kill your animals for you in slaughter houses, but only because you are civilized.
> 
> You know what, Holmes?  I've been a vegetarian for almost 20 years.  Here you love your shredded cow and chicken fingers while you look down your snotty nose at people who kill their own food.  I have no problem with hunters or non-vegetarians, just a personal choice for me.  But your view that while you stuff meat down your throat that anyone killing their own food is like everything else you say, a ridiculous statement by a ridiculous little man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you. But i do have a problem with hunters. That's my personal choice. If you find joy in killing an innocent defenseless animal, you're a sick fuck. And you're a tiny-dicked little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hunt. That is a personal choice. I think that a man that relies on others to kill his food is a tiny-dicked little pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, only tiny-dicked little pussies enjoy killing & maiming an animal that has no chance to defend itself. Find another hobby.
Click to expand...



Says the guy who needs someone else to kill his animals for him...did you read that back to yourself before you posted...you know....to see the way it makes you look like a real asshole....


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
Click to expand...


Ha, dressed head to toe in camo hiding in a tree for several hours waiting to ambush a defenseless animal. Yeah, pretty much sums up your average camo-wearing loon. Get a life. Find another hobby.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop giving them bicycles and swimming pools.
Click to expand...



and cars...and I think I saw that furniture kills more people accidentally than guns do too...get rid of that recliner....


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Accidental gun deaths of children in 2013.... 69........out of a country of over 320 million people......guns are not the problem.
Click to expand...


But one child died, we need to lock down the country and take away our rights!

Hey polly, if we can find 69 gay parents who molested their children, can we make gay parenting illegal?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, dressed head to toe in camo hiding in a tree for several hours waiting to ambush a defenseless animal. Yeah, pretty much sums up your average camo-wearing loon. Get a life. Find another hobby.
Click to expand...


So what chance do the cows you have other people shred for you have?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
Click to expand...

camo hammocks and g-strings are cuter.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop giving them bicycles and swimming pools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and cars...and I think I saw that furniture kills more people accidentally than guns do too...get rid of that recliner....
Click to expand...


Thousands of kids have been molested by gay parents, we need to make gay adoption illegal


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> camo hammocks and g-strings are cuter.
Click to expand...


Not on Polly...


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
Click to expand...


Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals. 

God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
Click to expand...


Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite


----------



## danielpalos

camo yoga pants; i love modern advances in textile technologies.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
Click to expand...



again..60% of the American people after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black guy don't think gun control is the answer.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll just explain to my kids that they need to wait until they are 18 to learn to use guns safely to make elitist liberal snobs happy, they'll totally buy that...
Click to expand...


When they're adults they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms. They can also decide whether or not they wanna become deranged camo-wearing shits, and kill innocent defenseless animals. It'll be their call.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll just explain to my kids that they need to wait until they are 18 to learn to use guns safely to make elitist liberal snobs happy, they'll totally buy that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they're adults they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms. They can also decide whether or not they wanna become deranged camo-wearing shits and kill innocent defenseless animals. It'll be their call.
Click to expand...



or...they can decide to eat animals lined up and slaughtered in factory farms and then they can go on and prance around about how pure they are because they themselves don't kill animals for food......


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
Click to expand...

Give it a shot... Just remember that camo-wearing asshole may just be armed.


----------



## paulitician

It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins. 

The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunt for survival? I've met a couple. I grew up eating venison once or twice a week, so even in my youth, it wasn't so much about survival as it was suplimenting the larder with some free or cheaper food.
> Yes I can afford to buy food, but that's not really why I hunt. I hunt because I was raised to hunt. I enjoy being out there in nature and I like the feeling of accomplishment when the hunt is successful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
Click to expand...

The idea is to kill efficiently. But that is only the culmination of the hunt. Sitting and waiting for several hours in the wrong place won't fill the freezer. Hunting is all about being in the right place and you only learn how to identify the right place with experience.
I guess you never bothered to do the work and only wanted the reward.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.




Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll just explain to my kids that they need to wait until they are 18 to learn to use guns safely to make elitist liberal snobs happy, they'll totally buy that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they're adults they can decide whether or not they wanna acquire firearms. They can also decide whether or not they wanna become deranged camo-wearing shits, and kill innocent defenseless animals. It'll be their call.
Click to expand...


Begging the question.  Once again you state as if you know what you're talking about that which proves you don't know what you are talking about.  That there were 69 accidental shootings across the entire country for an entire year shows how effective parents are at teaching our children.

So should we make it illegal for gay kids to have sex until they are 18 and they can decide for themselves if they want to be gay or not as adults?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
Click to expand...


Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea is to kill efficiently. But that is only the culmination of the hunt. Sitting and waiting for several hours in the wrong place won't fill the freezer. Hunting is all about being in the right place and you only learn how to identify the right place with experience.
> I guess you never bothered to do the work and only wanted the reward.
Click to expand...


Now Ernie....he does a lot of work to procure his food.....he waits patiently in line at the check out counter...and when the moment is right.....he springs into action, pulling out his wallet and credit card right as the checker asks him for it......a day well spent procuring food in the holier than though crowd......


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea is to kill efficiently. But that is only the culmination of the hunt. Sitting and waiting for several hours in the wrong place won't fill the freezer. Hunting is all about being in the right place and you only learn how to identify the right place with experience.
> I guess you never bothered to do the work and only wanted the reward.
Click to expand...


Now that's the way to put it for Polly, he'll get that.  He does the same thing for Johns.  You stand on the wrong street corner and you can't make enough to buy a good diner of some defenseless animal someone else killed for you


----------



## 2aguy

And just so I can go through the data again...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would  push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......*35,369*

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013..*.29,001*

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...*30,208*
Accidental drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 69  ( in a country of 320 million people)*


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

*2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505*
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....


----------



## paulitician

A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or it's just the logical safe thing to do. We don't give our children cigarettes and alcohol. There are many other child activities out there that don't involve the possibility of them blowing their heads off. Explore those instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll just explain to my kids that they need to wait until they are 18 to learn to use guns safely to make elitist liberal snobs happy, they'll totally buy that...
Click to expand...

Yeah THAT makes a lot of sense. At 18, a kid thinks he knows it all and is invincible. He thinks he can't be taught anything, and Polly thinks THAT is the time to hand him a gun.
Sorry. the time to teach gun safety is when they are pre-teens; before they think they know it all.
Yes guns are dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or evil people.
A parent can't fix evil, but I chose to protect my children from ignorance.


----------



## 2aguy

Thanks Kaz....I made a mistake in that one post I post...I put 72 instead of 69...I was a history major, not a math major.......

The numbers again for accidental death of kids up to age 14

Under 1:  3

1-4:         27

5-14:       39

I don't list the next category because they go from 14-25....they don't break it down in more detail...


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
Click to expand...

Damn boy! Have you nothing else?
Nope I didn't stop by Walmart. I get better prices at the gun shop a mile from my house, AND I get to browse the fully automatic weapons on display. I REALLY want that Ma Deuce on the floor.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.


And you don't see any irony here, do you?


----------



## 2aguy

Just think about it for one minute.....or a week for you anti gun extremists...it will probably take you that long to warm up your brains...

According to the CDC, in 2013 there were 69 accidental gun deaths of children up to the age of 14.

That means that in a country of over 320 million people, with guns in about 90 million homes, and more than 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense.....

Only 69 children died in accidental gun deaths.

That shows that the American people are incredibly responsible when it comes to gun ownership......the numbers are just amazing.  Can you think of any other activity that has so few accidental deaths with children?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy! Have you nothing else?
> Nope I didn't stop by Walmart. I get better prices at the gun shop a mile from my house, AND I get to browse the fully automatic weapons on display. I REALLY want that Ma Deuce on the floor.
Click to expand...


Nah, i'm betting you're a typical Camo-Wearing Walmart nutball. I can spot weird Gun Nuts a mile away. I used to be a gun seller.


----------



## Ernie S.

You've said you sold guns several dozen times like that makes you an expert or something.
No argument you've made shows any expertise . What is does indicate is that you are just another whiny pussy that is afraid of an inanimate object.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for your own sake, grow a pair and be man enough to speak for yourself rather than creating in your mind legions of non-existant followers who hang on your every word.
> 
> I is a far more powerful word than we.  We means you don't have enough masculinity to stand on your own, I means you do
Click to expand...


*I* think you are an asshole as well as dishonest.

Gee, now I'm a man?  And I was lead to believe that Kaz and his band of brothers were men 'cause they weren't afraid to go outside when they had a gun.  Having a gun you see, much like having a few drinks, makes a coward into a manly guy.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for your own sake, grow a pair and be man enough to speak for yourself rather than creating in your mind legions of non-existant followers who hang on your every word.
> 
> I is a far more powerful word than we.  We means you don't have enough masculinity to stand on your own, I means you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I* think you are an asshole as well as dishonest.
> 
> Gee, now I'm a man?  And I was lead to believe that Kaz and his band of brothers were men 'cause they weren't afraid to go outside when they had a gun.  Having a gun you see, much like having a few drinks, makes a coward into a manly guy.
Click to expand...



You stupid, anti gun extremists think funny.........


----------



## Ernie S.

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for your own sake, grow a pair and be man enough to speak for yourself rather than creating in your mind legions of non-existant followers who hang on your every word.
> 
> I is a far more powerful word than we.  We means you don't have enough masculinity to stand on your own, I means you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I* think you are an asshole as well as dishonest.
> 
> Gee, now I'm a man?  And I was lead to believe that Kaz and his band of brothers were men 'cause they weren't afraid to go outside when they had a gun.  Having a gun you see, much like having a few drinks, makes a coward into a manly guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid, anti gun extremists think funny.........
Click to expand...

ACT funny They rarely think at all.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not.  It was a question, and limited to a yes or no response. Begging the Question is to post a circular argument, one wherein the premise assumes the truth of the conclusion - please, for you own sake, stop proving your ignorance and making others laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
Click to expand...


Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, i have hunted. A regrettable time of my life. Nowadays i prefer to observe and enjoy nature and God's creatures. I can afford that luxury.
> 
> Most camo-wearing jackholes i've met, don't hunt for survival. They kill and maim innocent defenseless animals because they think it's fun. I truly despise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you have other people kill your food for you because you're civilized. Shredded cow on a bun, hell yeah, but kill the cow yourself?  Eew.
> 
> As for "defenseless," you need to tour a slaughterhouse, you know, the place you civilized people get your food...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've met very few if any Hunters who hunt for survival. And i seriously doubt you have either. Most camo-wearing fuckwits kill & maim for fun. They're sickos. And they're pussies too. The animals they hunt are defenseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the "camo-wearing" gun nuts?  Why?  What is your obsession with that? W hat is the relevance to the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't stand em. Gun obsessed assholes. They're why many Americans want to take the guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming, flamboyant faggots.  Ass obsessed assholes.  They're why many Americans don't give a shit about gay marriage
Click to expand...


It seems Kaz has come out of the closet, a fully clothed Nazi


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
Click to expand...



You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> You enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. Just call it like it is. But hey, that's on you. If Karma is real, you got a lot coming back around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
Click to expand...


It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
Click to expand...


LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
Click to expand...



No it isn't asswipe.....not one thing you morons propose is targeted at actual criminals....everything you suggest, licensing gun owners, registering the guns of law abiding citizens, limiting the magazine capacity of law abiding gun owner's guns.........effect criminals or stop one crime or one mass shooting........

Then your lefty judges and prosecutors let gun criminals go with light sentences so they are back on the streets shooting more people...

So no....you don't fucking care about stopping gun criminals....everything you do just goes after law abiding, peaceful, normal people.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
Click to expand...


Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.

How pitiful is that.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
Click to expand...



You were done a long time ago....we respond to you for practice......since you lefties will never understand the truth, reality, the difference between right and wrong and good and evil.......we keep our skills sharp bouncing them off of you and the other useful idiots...


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't asswipe.....not one thing you morons propose is targeted at actual criminals....everything you suggest, licensing gun owners, registering the guns of law abiding citizens, limiting the magazine capacity of law abiding gun owner's guns.........effect criminals or stop one crime or one mass shooting........
> 
> Then your lefty judges and prosecutors let gun criminals go with light sentences so they are back on the streets shooting more people...
> 
> So no....you don't fucking care about stopping gun criminals....everything you do just goes after law abiding, peaceful, normal people.....
Click to expand...


You may obey the law but you are to dumb and too obsessed to understand the real issue, that is, to mitigate gun violence in America. I helped put a large number of criminals in jail and in prison protecting law abiding victims.  Don't lecture me, you don't have the brains or the brawn to do that job.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
Click to expand...

you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.



What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
Click to expand...

Have you mentioned that to Polly? Kaz has presented facts and statistics. You and Polly, nothing more than emotionalism.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that more kids are killed by cars than are killed by guns........and that each year we hand keys of these machines to 16 year old kids...........and let them drive on their own...often with their teenage friends....
> 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
> 
> From the CDC table 10, 2013.......motor vehicle deaths by age group...
> 
> Under 1:   68
> 
> 5-14:  425
> 
> 15-24:  6,968
> 
> 
> Accidental deaths of children due to guns in 2013...all ages (1-14):  69
> 
> Give them guns, keep them out of cars.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause driving is the same as handing a child a firearm. Only in Gun Nut delusion world does that make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really....you don't think that giving the keys to a car to a 16 year old teenager isn't far more dangerous than allowing them to use a gun with your supervision.....
> 
> do you realize that car accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers..if anything we should ban kids from driving till they are in heir 20s...more of them would survive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh, swimming and riding their bicycle is the same thing too. Yeah, that shite only makes sense to delusional Gun Nuts. Stop giving the kids firearms. Ya dang dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll just explain to my kids that they need to wait until they are 18 to learn to use guns safely to make elitist liberal snobs happy, they'll totally buy that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah THAT makes a lot of sense. At18, a kid thinks he knows it all and is invincible. He thinks he can't be taught anything, and Polly thinks THAT is the time to hand him a gun.
> Sorry. the time to teach gun safety is when they are pre-teens; before they think they know it all.
> Yes guns are dangerous in the hands of the ignorant or evil people.
> A parent can't fix evil, but I chose to protect my children from ignorance.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Polly still thinks they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil.  By the time I was 18, I was adept at building custom cabinets using power saws and other tools that can kill you just as dead as a gun.  In fact I earned most of my way through college doing that sort of handiwork.  I also knew how to handle guns and shoot safely.  My father was gone from when I was five, as the oldest I was the man of the house.  Today I own my own business with 10 employees and I work in management consulting and travel all the time, I'm spending 2/3 my time this year in the Netherlands.

I think being a kid is time to set the platform for who you are as a man and as an adult.  Polly thinks before you are 18 you're an inept loser who should be kept dependent and slow.  He probably smoked pot all day and did nothing, so he wants everyone else held back like he did to himself


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't asswipe.....not one thing you morons propose is targeted at actual criminals....everything you suggest, licensing gun owners, registering the guns of law abiding citizens, limiting the magazine capacity of law abiding gun owner's guns.........effect criminals or stop one crime or one mass shooting........
> 
> Then your lefty judges and prosecutors let gun criminals go with light sentences so they are back on the streets shooting more people...
> 
> So no....you don't fucking care about stopping gun criminals....everything you do just goes after law abiding, peaceful, normal people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may obey the law but you are to dumb and too obsessed to understand the real issue, that is, to mitigate gun violence in America. I helped put a large number of criminals in jail and in prison protecting law abiding victims.  Don't lecture me, you don't have the brains or the brawn to do that job.
Click to expand...


Begging the question.  Hey, here's an idea, tell us how you are going to do this, "mitigate gun violence in America."  Here's the thing, Holmes, that's my OP post question, and so far, you offer zero in terms of how you will accomplish this task except you want to keep disarming the people ... who aren't committing those crimes ...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...


LIAR!  But let's play this game.  

How do we keep drunks out of cars?

How do we keep molesters from molesting?

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?

How do we keep minors from using drugs?

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?

Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
Click to expand...


Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea



Wry Catcher said:


> But let's play this game.



Challenge accepted

According to you?

How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people

How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison

How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office

How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs

How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation

Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
Click to expand...

We've already made laws to keep drunks out of cars, molesters from molesting, legislators from taking bribes, minors from taking drugs and judges from making law, yet these things still go on. There are laws designed to prevent criminals from having guns, yet criminals still get guns and shoot people. You want to limit or impede law abiding people from possessing what they need to prevent getting shot by criminals with illegally obtained guns.


I own lots of guns. I've never killed anyone, but I HAVE prevented 2 assaults and one rape with a firearm.
If you had your way, I'd have been stabbed twice, my ex-wife would have been raped and criminals would STILL have guns.
Tell me how SPECIFICALLY, you propose to keep criminals from getting guns.
Don't dance around it like you have been. I want you to propose a law without the ad hom crap you've been passing off as an answer.
Gotta go to work. I'll be back about 5 CDT and I'll look at your proposal.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
Click to expand...


Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.  

My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.

Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.

I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.

One more time.  

A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?

A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?

Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?

A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?

All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).

Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?

I say no.  So does the NRA.

I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.


----------



## regent

We pay politicians plenty to solve our problems, they should have the wherewithal and staff to decide the best way to handle the gun situation. The public's responsibility is to let the Congress know their wishes. America at this point seems divided,  so in this case money then enters the picture, and it may be this money that decides the issue? How much is spent,  by whom and for what purpose?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
Click to expand...



You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......

In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......

Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....

What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
Click to expand...





> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.



And not once have you been able to explain how forcing people to get a license keeps guns out of the hands of criminals......

A license is not needed to achieve this or anything you posted.

Again, let me explain......

You are a law abiding citizen carrying a gun without a license.  You are stopped by police and they run a warrant check on you.....you come up clean, and you drive away.  No license needed.

You are a criminal carrying a gun and are stopped by police.  They run your drivers license and see you are a convicted felon...they search you and your car and find a gun......you are then arrested since you can't own, carry or even touch the gun.....no license needed to accomplish the arrest.

You are a law abiding citizen carrying a gun, you do not rape, rob or  murder anyone.  No license required.

You are a criminal who uses a gun to rape, rob or murder someone...first, if you are a felon you can already be arrested for having the gun, no matter what else you do.....if you use a gun to rape, rob or murder someone, you can already be arrested for that...

no need to license anyone..

So what is the fucking point to making law abiding citizens get licenses......can one of you anti gun extremists explain that?


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> We pay politicians plenty to solve our problems, they should have the wherewithal and staff to decide the best way to handle the gun situation. The public's responsibility is to let the Congress know their wishes. America at this point seems divided,  so in this case money then enters the picture, and it may be this money that decides the issue? How much is spent,  by whom and for what purpose?




America is not divided....60% of Americans, polled after the gay, black man murdered the journalist and cameraman say gun control is not the answer....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
Click to expand...




> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?



If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law.  True or False?

If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law.  True Or False?

If the above two statements are true....(hint:  Yes, they are both true.)  Then why do we need to license gun owners?

Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.


----------



## regent

I would suspect there are a number of laws regarding automobiles and drivers, but maybe it would be a good idea to issue a gun permit to own and operate a gun, and maybe the issue would have to have insurance and so forth. I think you're on to something here.  Of course, the analogy is bad but thanks for trying.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
Click to expand...



I don't know.  I mean, it wasn't that long ago when people using rebel yell to support our constitutional rights was considered patriotic.  Now it's considered pitiful?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed



It wasn't sarcasm, that is actually your solution to those problems, punish the people who don't do the bad things and do nothing about those who do.  Straight up, Holmes



Wry Catcher said:


> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.



So do I and I never said otherwise.  In fact, I keep saying it gives the right of ownership to those ... who haven't had their Constitutional rights removed by due process of law.  I've told you this repeatedly, how stupid are you?  It isn't that hard to grasp.  It's actually fairly simple



Wry Catcher said:


> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands



Doesn't work, try reading my OP post and answering the question



Wry Catcher said:


> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.



If that is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then why can teenagers buy all the pot they want now when it's actually illegal?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
Click to expand...




> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.



Under your stupid idea.........

So I bring a buddy to the range to shoot and teach him gun safety.....I hand him a gun......we are both now felons.

True or False?

My wife is going out for the night and I lend her my pistol.....we are both now felons.  True or False?

We are not cops.   Felons cannot touch a gun or they can be arrested on the spot.  If a felon is caught with a gun they can be arrested.   There is no need to force law abiding gun owners to pay for or endure excessive background checks under penalty of jail time, fines and loss of employment....simply because you guys hate guns.

If someone commits a crime with a gun...arrest them.

If a felon is caught in possession of a gun...arrest them.

No license is needed to do either thing.....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
Click to expand...



Please...explain how forcing law abiding gun owners to get a license to own a gun will keep them out of the hands of criminals.....not one of you guys has been able to do that yet.......


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> We pay politicians plenty to solve our problems, they should have the wherewithal and staff to decide the best way to handle the gun situation. The public's responsibility is to let the Congress know their wishes. America at this point seems divided,  so in this case money then enters the picture, and it may be this money that decides the issue? How much is spent,  by whom and for what purpose?



Begging the question, and you think politicians solve our problems?



Baaaaaa.........


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> I would suspect there are a number of laws regarding automobiles and drivers, but maybe it would be a good idea to issue a gun permit to own and operate a gun, and maybe the issue would have to have insurance and so forth. I think you're on to something here.  Of course, the analogy is bad but thanks for trying.



Can we require a permit and insurance for you to exercise free speech?  You could commit libel


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
Click to expand...


Maybe he could answer the question once, that apparently is not important to you.  That would work in reverse, right?  If you asked us a question we kept not answering?  You'd mock yourself for asking it again?


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> I would suspect there are a number of laws regarding automobiles and drivers, but maybe it would be a good idea to issue a gun permit to own and operate a gun, and maybe the issue would have to have insurance and so forth. I think you're on to something here.  Of course, the analogy is bad but thanks for trying.




Sorry....owning a gun is a natural right....if you want to license gun owners and require a permit, then we would also be able to do like the democrats did after their slaves were freed, and charge a poll tax to vote, require a literacy test to vote, and require a property requirement to vote......

There is no need to license gun owners.....in 2013 there were only 505 accidental gun deaths in our country of over 320 million people.....we are operating our guns very responsibly.....

If you really want to stop gun violence....

--target actual criminals

--go after gangs in inner cities who do almost all of the shooting

--force prosectuors and judges to actually give long prison sentences to violent criminals and criminals who use guns

--arrest people who use guns to commit crimes

--arrest felons who are caught with guns...

See what is missing from all of those suggestions......you are not directing any effort at law abiding, normal people who don't break the law....

You would actually be focusing on people who use guns to commit crimes....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, sir, are the one being laughed at here.
> Thanks for the entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're most welcome, my ego isn't a bit harmed by the laughter of obsessive fools, that you find the slaughter of innocents humorous suggests a good deal about you, and none of it is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I find humorous is your arrogant use of the "death of innocents" to promote your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken out of context it is simply another lie by M14.  Of course the fact is innocents have died in mass in recent years, I suppose gun lovers find any reference to such events a recent to celebrate, and spread rumors of governmental plans to confiscate guns; thus creating an influx of new sales for the industry which provides the tools for mass murder.
> 
> Please feel free to post more stupid comments, it enhances your resume as an outstanding member of the crazy right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our spike in gun and ammo purchases had nothing to do with the NRA, it had to do with the top salesman for guns: Barack Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
Click to expand...


Nope, all we do is repeat what the Democrats and anti-gun people have said.  People don't start buying guns and ammo based on our opinions; we're on their side.  It's when your side talks about more government and restrictions on guns that sets people off.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> We pay politicians plenty to solve our problems, they should have the wherewithal and staff to decide the best way to handle the gun situation. The public's responsibility is to let the Congress know their wishes. America at this point seems divided,  so in this case money then enters the picture, and it may be this money that decides the issue? How much is spent,  by whom and for what purpose?




You should be required to get a license to use each one of your electronic devices....since you might engage in identity theft...right?   That way police would know if you are a criminal....so you should also register all of your electronic devices with the police...just in case you are a child molestor...right?

See how that works when you target normal people instead of actual criminals...

Do you guys think these things through at all......or do you just take in the anti gun talking points and go with them.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  It has all to do with hate and fear rhetoric, of people like you, Kaz, 2aguy, M14 shooter and the gun & ammo industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
Click to expand...


You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.

In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.

I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
Click to expand...


That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.  

If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.  

Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
Click to expand...



You are the stupid one......you listed everything MADD has done...they have increased penalties, they require breathaylzers......

But explain to me anything that MADD got passed that effects anyone....before they drive drunk.  Can you do that?

I Read your list, several times....and not one of the things they helped get passed into law effects anyone who does not drive drunk, gets arrested and is found guilty.

Everyone of the things you want to do to law abiding gun owners is done to them before they break the law.

Of course, you want to increase the chances they break the law by making them get licenses......

But MADD does not insist that everyone who wants to drink get a license to do it....do they.

MADD does not insist that every American who drives must have a breathalyzer in their car...in case they are going to break the law.....

You are too stupid to realize that you want guns and gun owners handled differently from any other activity that might end up in a crime.....

Do you want all people who use electronic devices to get a license....so we know who they are......they could be buying a computor to engage in identity theft, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber stalking, cyber bullying....right?

Should all electronic devices be registered to the individual who is using them with the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies....so we know who they are?

Should all bottles of alcohol be registered to the buyer....in case they sell it to minors...so we know who sold it?

You are the idiot.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law.  True or False?
> 
> If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law.  True Or False?
> 
> If the above two statements are true....(hint:  Yes, they are both true.)  Then why do we need to license gun owners?
> 
> Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.
Click to expand...


More ignorance.  Both are true, however.  How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?  How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun.  How many non felons, non criminals do so?

How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?  

Q.  How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?

A.  You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence.  IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun.  There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the stupid one......you listed everything MADD has done...they have increased penalties, they require breathaylzers......
> 
> But explain to me anything that MADD got passed that effects anyone....before they drive drunk.  Can you do that?
> 
> I Read your list, several times....and not one of the things they helped get passed into law effects anyone who does not drive drunk, gets arrested and is found guilty.
> 
> Everyone of the things you want to do to law abiding gun owners is done to them before they break the law.
> 
> Of course, you want to increase the chances they break the law by making them get licenses......
> 
> But MADD does not insist that everyone who wants to drink get a license to do it....do they.
> 
> MADD does not insist that every American who drives must have a breathalyzer in their car...in case they are going to break the law.....
> 
> You are too stupid to realize that you want guns and gun owners handled differently from any other activity that might end up in a crime.....
> 
> Do you want all people who use electronic devices to get a license....so we know who they are......they could be buying a computor to engage in identity theft, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber stalking, cyber bullying....right?
> 
> Should all electronic devices be registered to the individual who is using them with the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies....so we know who they are?
> 
> Should all bottles of alcohol be registered to the buyer....in case they sell it to minors...so we know who sold it?
> 
> You are the idiot.....
Click to expand...


Well, you're too dumb to get it, and BTW, you're an asshole too.


----------



## asaratis

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe these people you call obsessed? I described myself. Am I one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you describe obsessed? Do you need a 100 guns?
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not say that Citizen Doe has a right to bear a firearm.  It says that Citizen Doe has a right to bear arms.  (plural).

A collector I know has over 2000 working firearms....and I'm guessing a long ton of ammunition.  He can bear how ever many of them he is able to carry....all at one time...if he chooses.  I have only 4 pistols at this time.  I carry one at a time, sometimes two...with extra magazines.  My concealed-carry permit allows me to hide them on my person...as long as I have the permit also on my person.  It also allows me to carry long knives, swords, spears, cross bows, spiked clubs and the like.  It does not allow me to carry live hand grenades or land mines.

Law abiding citizens with guns, concealed or openly carried....should not be feared.  They should be welcomed....as should the LEOs that we seem to expect to protect us at all times. 

They are here to protect us from criminal activity.  They are here to enforce the laws by arresting (stopping) those that break the laws, issuing citations to court for minor infractions, arresting and detaining those that commit major crimes, testifying in court regarding the crime.

It is ludicrous that the BLM idiots have ratcheted up unwarranted fear and hatred of the police.  I don't generally quote statistics for the sake of argument, but I heard recently from an extremely reliable source that LESS THAN ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF ALL ARRESTS BY LEO ACROSS THE NATION RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE PERSON ARRESTED.  That is <(less than)0.1%!!!!!  That is less than ONE OUT OF EVERY THOUSAND ARRESTED!!!!

Blacks need to fear other blacks a heap more than they fear the police!


----------



## asaratis

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?
Click to expand...

One should be well aware of what one's opponent thinks.  I often read books supporting atheism just to see how the fools that write them think.


----------



## asaratis

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the thread isn't about gays.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's your inconsistency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that either. And seeing the other side's view is good for the cause. Ignoring it, will destroy the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  They aren't changing their view and they don't have the legitimate right to deny us Constitutional rights.  Why do we need to understand our oppressors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being a gun-obsessed asshole won't help the cause. It'll only hurt it.
Click to expand...

Being an asshole-obsessed asshole does nothing for the cause either.  Only makes your butt hurt....or your dick smell like shit for a while.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't sarcasm, that is actually your solution to those problems, punish the people who don't do the bad things and do nothing about those who do.  Straight up, Holmes
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I and I never said otherwise.  In fact, I keep saying it gives the right of ownership to those ... who haven't had their Constitutional rights removed by due process of law.  I've told you this repeatedly, how stupid are you?  It isn't that hard to grasp.  It's actually fairly simple
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't work, try reading my OP post and answering the question
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then why can teenagers buy all the pot they want now when it's actually illegal?
Click to expand...


Having a license to own a gun, is no more of a punishment than having a license to drive.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.
> 
> If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.
> 
> Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.
Click to expand...


From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment.  Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law.  True or False?
> 
> If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law.  True Or False?
> 
> If the above two statements are true....(hint:  Yes, they are both true.)  Then why do we need to license gun owners?
> 
> Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ignorance.  Both are true, however.  How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?  How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun.  How many non felons, non criminals do so?
> 
> How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?
> 
> Q.  How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?
> 
> A.  You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence.  IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun.  There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.
Click to expand...




> How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?



In 2013....69 out of a country of 320 million.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> I would suspect there are a number of laws regarding automobiles and drivers, but maybe it would be a good idea to issue a gun permit to own and operate a gun, and maybe the issue would have to have insurance and so forth. I think you're on to something here.  Of course, the analogy is bad but thanks for trying.


Of course the analogy is bad. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say your right to drive a car shall not be infringed.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law.  True or False?
> 
> If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law.  True Or False?
> 
> If the above two statements are true....(hint:  Yes, they are both true.)  Then why do we need to license gun owners?
> 
> Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ignorance.  Both are true, however.  How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?  How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun.  How many non felons, non criminals do so?
> 
> How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?
> 
> Q.  How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?
> 
> A.  You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence.  IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun.  There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.
Click to expand...



You still don't get it.   Please tell me how many MADD policies that they have turned into laws effect people who have not been arrested or caught drunk driving....you used them as an example...please explain......

We have ideas on how to stop gun crime....that isn't what you care about, you just care that normal, law abiding citizens want to own guns....so you focus your energy on them, not criminals.

Want to stop gun crime....lock up people who use guns to commit crimes....



> How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?



Thanks for asking.....most of the gun crime is committed by repeat offenders, not law abiding citizens who all of a sudden decide to knock over a liquor store.  

In Richmond, California, 17 criminals were responsible for 76% of all the shootings.....80% of gun crime in Chicago is because of gangs.  So no, law abiding citizens are not the problem.



> There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership



That one is easy too.......if you own a gun and use it to commit a crime...you are arrested....

If you cause harm with your gun, you are sued......

What more is there to say moron.



> You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence.



We have, it is called putting gun criminals in prison for a long time, the only way to stop them....but prosecutors and judges seem to want them back on the street...why is that?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't sarcasm, that is actually your solution to those problems, punish the people who don't do the bad things and do nothing about those who do.  Straight up, Holmes
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I and I never said otherwise.  In fact, I keep saying it gives the right of ownership to those ... who haven't had their Constitutional rights removed by due process of law.  I've told you this repeatedly, how stupid are you?  It isn't that hard to grasp.  It's actually fairly simple
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't work, try reading my OP post and answering the question
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then why can teenagers buy all the pot they want now when it's actually illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a license to own a gun, is no more of a punishment than having a license to drive.
Click to expand...



There is no need to license gun owners.....again.....what does it do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...you still have not explained that.

Again...

If someone commits a crime with a gun they can be arrested, right now, with existing laws.  True or False?

In such a case there is no need to license a law abiding gun owner.  True or False?

If a convicted criminal is caught in the mere possession of a gun they can be arrested on the spot, right now, with existing laws.  True or False?

In such a case there is no need to license a law abiding gun owner.  True or False?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the stupid one......you listed everything MADD has done...they have increased penalties, they require breathaylzers......
> 
> But explain to me anything that MADD got passed that effects anyone....before they drive drunk.  Can you do that?
> 
> I Read your list, several times....and not one of the things they helped get passed into law effects anyone who does not drive drunk, gets arrested and is found guilty.
> 
> Everyone of the things you want to do to law abiding gun owners is done to them before they break the law.
> 
> Of course, you want to increase the chances they break the law by making them get licenses......
> 
> But MADD does not insist that everyone who wants to drink get a license to do it....do they.
> 
> MADD does not insist that every American who drives must have a breathalyzer in their car...in case they are going to break the law.....
> 
> You are too stupid to realize that you want guns and gun owners handled differently from any other activity that might end up in a crime.....
> 
> Do you want all people who use electronic devices to get a license....so we know who they are......they could be buying a computor to engage in identity theft, child pornography, human trafficking, cyber stalking, cyber bullying....right?
> 
> Should all electronic devices be registered to the individual who is using them with the local, state and federal law enforcement agencies....so we know who they are?
> 
> Should all bottles of alcohol be registered to the buyer....in case they sell it to minors...so we know who sold it?
> 
> You are the idiot.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're too dumb to get it, and BTW, you're an asshole too.
Click to expand...



Says the asswipe.

Allow me to translate your answer to "normal speak."

Translation begins:

Wow...2aguy showed that my ideas are really stupid.   And really, they actually are.  But in order to be ready to put a ban or confiscate in place.....after we hopefully get a really big death count in the next mass shooting, we need to have those gun people's names and addresses recorded.  That way we don't have to waste time first getting them licensed, and then imposing the ban or confiscating their weapons.  That takes too much time, and they can get their lawyers involved before we can get their guns.....

Gee wiz...that 2aguy is really, really sharp...he sees that I am an idiot and keeps beating me with his facts....

End Translation.


----------



## 2aguy

On the nature of killers....

Public Health Pot Shots

These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journal_Educational Horizons_ that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you still can't point to a single post you offered an actual substantive idea
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's play this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge accepted
> 
> According to you?
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars? - Take car keys away from sober people
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting? - Put people who don't molest in prison
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes? - By removing people who don't accept bribes from office
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs? - By grounding kids who don't do drugs
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law? -   It's a problem, but I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding this conversation
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will. - Yeah, that's a problem we have.  Sure, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your response to these loaded questions is inadequate, at best.
> 
> My question is much more relevant in re judges/justices than your rant on gays.
> 
> Prior restraint and due process are high hurdles if you really hoped to prove a point, which you didn't.  Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed.
> 
> I answered the question in the OP pages ago and several times.  You are being dishonest when you continue to challenge me to do so over and over.
> 
> One more time.
> 
> A license is required to own an automatic weapon.  True or false?
> Owning or having in ones possession when not licensed to have one is a crime.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required in every state to drive a car.  True or false?
> Driving without a license is an infraction.  True or False?
> 
> Driving with a suspended or revoked license is a misdemeanor.  True or False?
> 
> A license is required to hunt or fish.  True or false?
> Fishing or hunting without a license can be a crime.  True or False?
> Poaching is a crime?  True or False?
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> All of the above require a license, for public safety and the preservation of natural resources (the American Bison was almost hunted to extinction for their robes, and the meat left to rot).
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands.
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For each of these examples a violator can be fined or incarcerated. True or False?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime they can be arrested and jailed...right now under existing law.  True or False?
> 
> If a felon is caught in possession of a gun, in their home or on their person, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to jail...right now under existing law.  True Or False?
> 
> If the above two statements are true....(hint:  Yes, they are both true.)  Then why do we need to license gun owners?
> 
> Still waiting for an answer to that very easy question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More ignorance.  Both are true, however.  How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?  How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun.  How many non felons, non criminals do so?
> 
> How many children play with a gun and die, or kill a friend or sibling?
> 
> Q.  How do we control non felons, non criminals from acts of violence with a gun?
> 
> A.  You and others of your kind (the gun obsessed) have no idea and don't want anyone to come up with ideas which might mitigate such violence.  IMO because your right to own a gun is more important than some child being killed by a gun.  There is no other explanation as to why pages and pages of are filled with the right to own a gun, and not a word as to the responsibilities of ownership.
Click to expand...


Here is your answer to these questions asswipe...



> How many felons commit murder compared with how many non felons commit acts of violence with a gun?  How many convicted felons kill their wife/SO, both acts with the same gun.  How many non felons, non criminals do so?





Public Health Pot Shots

These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journal_Educational Horizons_ that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence.

Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know..if you guys stopped trying to take peoples guns then we could relax, and I am sure fewer people would buy them.  But keep picking away at our rights and more people will feel the need to stock up.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
Click to expand...

While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.  The issue is not about the abolition of guns you dolt, it is about taking guns from criminals - an the OP is nothing is simply a loaded question.  Something you and too many others cannot understand.
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
Click to expand...


If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government.  When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
Click to expand...


That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.
> 
> If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.
> 
> Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment.  Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.
Click to expand...


So what is your solution, keep people from having children and expanding our civilization so that the deer can?  So we don't have to go through the pain staking efforts to cull the herd?  

God made us the smartest animal for a reason.  If he didn't want us to expand, the deer would have the guns and be shooting at us.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
Click to expand...



Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine: 

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

_The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure." 

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.
> 
> If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.
> 
> Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment.  Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is your solution, keep people from having children and expanding our civilization so that the deer can?  So we don't have to go through the pain staking efforts to cull the herd?
> 
> God made us the smartest animal for a reason.  If he didn't want us to expand, the deer would have the guns and be shooting at us.
Click to expand...


God may have made some of us the smartest animals, but my Border Collie is smarter than a number of the self defined conservatives who post here.

My answer is ecology and protection of the environment, which is why hunters are licensed and tags are limited.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
Click to expand...


Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
Click to expand...


Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens. 

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
Click to expand...


"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
Click to expand...


*"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

*Here's a list of school shootings:*

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government.  When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

But you are not correct. Licensing guns will not reduce gun violence one iota. People who will license their weapons are not people who use them to commit crimes.
By adding one more level of bureaucracy, you will, perhaps discourage a few potential legal gun owners, but the major accomplishment of a mandatory licensing law would be to simply make more criminals and violate the 2nd Amendment in the process.
WTF part of _*shall not be infringed*_ is so damned difficult for you to grasp?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
Click to expand...

I doubt that they do myself but the fact remains that the vast majority of kids killed by people with guns are gang bangers themselves. Yes. Kids get hit by a stray bullet from time to time, but those bullets did not come from the weapon of a legal gun owner. They came from a weapon in the hands of a thug who sure as hell won't be complying with mandatory licensing and/or registration.

You have yet to propose any  viable solution.


----------



## ninja007

LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
Click to expand...



See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is a rhetorical tool when it works, yours failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't sarcasm, that is actually your solution to those problems, punish the people who don't do the bad things and do nothing about those who do.  Straight up, Holmes
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the Second Amendment grant the absolute right of ownership of all forms of arms to* anyone* who wants them?  Yes or No?
> 
> I say no.  So does the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do I and I never said otherwise.  In fact, I keep saying it gives the right of ownership to those ... who haven't had their Constitutional rights removed by due process of law.  I've told you this repeatedly, how stupid are you?  It isn't that hard to grasp.  It's actually fairly simple
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've suggest a license be required to own, possess or have in one's custody or control as a means to control weapons ending up in the wrong hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't work, try reading my OP post and answering the question
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The penalty for selling, giving or loaning a gun to an unlicensed person should be unlawful, and the offender if convicted will be a criminal. Even 2aguy might be able to figure out what that would mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then why can teenagers buy all the pot they want now when it's actually illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a license to own a gun, is no more of a punishment than having a license to drive.
Click to expand...


Because driving is in the bill of rights where exactly?

So why do you constantly ignore the question, suppose we need a license for free speech?  That work for you?  Stop running away and hiding and man up to the question


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.
> 
> If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.
> 
> Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment.  Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.
Click to expand...


So that justifies letting them overpopulate and starve how exactly?  I like you guys who chow down on shredded cow and sliced chicken flesh someone killed for you get all sanctimonious about people who kill their own food.

Let's pass a law that requires you to kill your own food.  Maybe you can think about the POV of the cow you're about to shred for your dinner while you slit it's throat and whine that the hunters don't give their prey a chance.

You're a dishonesty wrapped in a hypocrisy inside a double standard


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a license to own a gun, is no more of a punishment than having a license to drive.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need to license gun owners.....again.....what does it do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...you still have not explained that.
Click to expand...


Bam!  The point in a nutshell.  Wry can't explain how licensing guns affects criminals, so he keeps begging the question and just assuming it does.  And he wants to do that to deflect from that he has no answer to the question


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government.  When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...


Begging the question.  Here's a thought.  You realize teenagers can get all the pot they want and pot is outright illegal in most States.  Why do you think a criminal wouldn't be able to get a gun just because you have registration.  You realize they can go to the same people who bring pot in to get guns, no?

And you fight for open borders as well to make it easy for them.  You have no intellectual honesty at all


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government.  When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...



Right, so the problem is Ernie trying to defend himself.  But for that, the criminal would have gone away and there would have been no incident and the cops wouldn't have had to come to the scene.  Let's blame the victim.   Why don't you have a clown avatar like the rest of your clown friends?


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called 'Trophy Hunting.' Just check out some hunter magazine covers. You'll quickly get a sense of what kind of cowardly nutters you're dealing with. Posing with their victims with ghoulish grins.
> 
> The camo-wearing assholes kill and maim God's beautiful animals just for fun. They don't do it for survival. They're pieces of shit. Hopefully they'll receive Karmic Justice at some point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.
> 
> If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.
> 
> Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment.  Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is your solution, keep people from having children and expanding our civilization so that the deer can?  So we don't have to go through the pain staking efforts to cull the herd?
> 
> God made us the smartest animal for a reason.  If he didn't want us to expand, the deer would have the guns and be shooting at us.
Click to expand...


Wry identifies problems, solutions are other people's problem.  Specifically, politicians and bureaucrats, the purveyors of all knowledge and wisdom.  They're doing such a bang up job, don't you think?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...God gave us those animals to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he knows that, his refrigerator is full of carcasses.  He just looks down on killing them himself.  There's a word for Polly.  It starts with h.  It ends with ypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's part of it.  The other part is that a deer is so cute, you know, Bambi.
> 
> If a deer had a head like a giant possum, they would say kill the bastards.
> 
> Maybe it's where he lives, I don't know.  But over here, everybody knows somebody that accidentally hit a deer while driving if they did not hit one themselves.  They cause a lot of accidents and auto body damage.  The deer over populate, and then there's not enough food for them all.  The ones that don't eat get weak and don't think straight.  They end up jumping in front of cars and trucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the POV of the deer, it's the people who have overpopulated their environment.  Callous conservatives don't give a shit about anyone or anything but themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is your solution, keep people from having children and expanding our civilization so that the deer can?  So we don't have to go through the pain staking efforts to cull the herd?
> 
> God made us the smartest animal for a reason.  If he didn't want us to expand, the deer would have the guns and be shooting at us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God may have made some of us the smartest animals, but my Border Collie is smarter than a number of the self defined conservatives who post here.
> 
> My answer is ecology and protection of the environment, which is why hunters are licensed and tags are limited.
Click to expand...


Well, if a border collie replaced you then it wouldn't have provided any less content in terms of addressing the OP question while it would be cute and play fetch, so it'd be a pretty good swap


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
Click to expand...


They didn't read Obamacare, why would they read the study?

My family is mostly conservative/libertarian.  My sister is the black sheep, a liberal.  We keep her in her room when company comes.  She has a PhD in math, her field is theoretical statistics.  She works for a non-profit that oversees studies in support of congressional legislation to protect children for home construction, playgrounds, that sort of thing.  Her biggest beef with her job is that they always write the legislation before the study is done.  Don't you love government?  So why pay for the study?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
Click to expand...


How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?


----------



## kaz

ninja007 said:


> LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.



Yes, that's the plan


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
Click to expand...


Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same. 

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society. 

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned. 

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that they feel the need to be armed at all times?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the plan
Click to expand...


Stupid comment and stupid response.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the plan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid comment and stupid response.
Click to expand...


You've offered no proposal except limiting the rights of honest citizens.  You bought it, own it.  You want to change that, actually address criminals and guns and stop blaming victims and removing our ability to defend ourselves, you know, like the OP asked...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
Click to expand...


Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
Click to expand...


Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.  

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.  

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.  

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
Click to expand...


I haven't posted content?  How many posts have you written without addressing my OP question once?  You keep going back to licensing and registration for legal gun owners who aren't committing the crimes.  You even blamed Ernie for the police needing to come if he defends himself as if that's why the criminal did it.

Again, focus.  Kids can get all the pot they want while it's illegal.  Address criminals getting guns, stop saying how you will prevent the rest of us from getting them.

And do you understand the same people who import drugs can and do import guns?  And the harder you make it to get them, the more they will import.

Here's the 411 Holmes, they want $$$


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
Click to expand...


My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook.  We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else.  There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I am a Virginia Tech alum.  I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered.  I also worked across the street from the World Trade center.  A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away.  None of those places seemed dangerous at all.  Particularly as you say during the day.  I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it.  Violence is around us and you just don't know.  The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
Click to expand...


I've heard that H. is very popular in the NE.  H. is one of the safer, if one can use that word, of the illicit drugs.  I had a CI who was an addict for decades, didn't look it, had all his death and held down a job.  The only times he looked like shit was when he needed to lighten up so he could shit.  I never asked what he took to avoid withdrawal, but he managed his habit very well and was alive and kicking when I moved on.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
Click to expand...

You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook.  We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else.  There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I am a Virginia Tech alum.  I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered.  I also worked across the street from the World Trade center.  A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away.  None of those places seemed dangerous at all.  Particularly as you say during the day.  I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it.  Violence is around us and you just don't know.  The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed
Click to expand...

Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.

I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that H. is very popular in the NE.  H. is one of the safer, if one can use that word, of the illicit drugs.  I had a CI who was an addict for decades, didn't look it, had all his death and held down a job.  The only times he looked like shit was when he needed to lighten up so he could shit.  I never asked what he took to avoid withdrawal, but he managed his habit very well and was alive and kicking when I moved on.
Click to expand...


They had an autopsy done just in case it was bad stuff.  While the paramedics were working on him, another call came in about a woman who overdosed just three miles from where he lived.  They were able to save her using a drug called Narcan®  But it was suspicious because it was a Sunday at 10:00 am and they were both the same age.  So far I haven't heard anything, but I do know autopsies take several months to complete around here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook.  We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else.  There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I am a Virginia Tech alum.  I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered.  I also worked across the street from the World Trade center.  A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away.  None of those places seemed dangerous at all.  Particularly as you say during the day.  I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it.  Violence is around us and you just don't know.  The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed
Click to expand...


I got the permit during the housing bubble.  When they came up with 0% down, it seemed like every lowlife from the inner-city moved here into the suburbs.  With them came the crime.  These lowlifes didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of.   I remember one time, we had three murders in less than one year all within a mile of my house.  

It took the banks years to catch up with their foreclosures and throw all the inner-city trash back to the inner-city, but like a tornado, once it's gone, it takes years to clean up.  So while many of them don't live here any longer, they do come by to visit their friends and family.  

Even with my gun, I still wouldn't take evening walks in the summer, but if I had to, I'd feel much safer than I did seven years ago.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
Click to expand...

Ad hom.........
I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
Arrogance is about all you got.

Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating?  Ever watch one of those nature shows?  How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store?   Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
Click to expand...


Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
Click to expand...


Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
Click to expand...


Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.

BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
Click to expand...



Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
Click to expand...


Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard. 

Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
Click to expand...

Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
Click to expand...



Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.

You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........

Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook.  We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else.  There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I am a Virginia Tech alum.  I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered.  I also worked across the street from the World Trade center.  A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away.  None of those places seemed dangerous at all.  Particularly as you say during the day.  I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it.  Violence is around us and you just don't know.  The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.
> 
> I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.
Click to expand...


Wow, that's cool, yes, New Fairfield is right there.  We looked at houses in both New Fairfield and Newtown and settled on Brookfield.  My kids were too old at the time of the shooting to be there, but they could have gone to that school


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
Click to expand...

The animal will die. More likely a cruel death from starvation or predators. It will feed scavengers and maggots.
It's just cold hard facts. I choose to control the death and use it to my advantage.
You don't. You rely on others to kill your meat. Does that make you superior?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
Click to expand...


Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
Click to expand...


A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
Click to expand...


Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you STILL can't tell us how you propose to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!  But let's play this game.
> 
> How do we keep drunks out of cars?
> 
> How do we keep molesters from molesting?
> 
> How do we keep legislators from accepting bribes?
> 
> How do we keep minors from using drugs?
> 
> How do we keep Judges and Justices from making law?
> 
> Think about it, if you can.  Maybe then you will understand, though I doubt you can or will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can reduce gun violence, it will cut the cost to local government.  When a gun is used, even by a law abiding citizen such as you, and a person is wounded or killed there is a cost in terms of first response personnel, hospitals, investigators, the prosecutors office and potentially the local jail, the courts, the public defender and probation; a cost paid by the taxpayer.
Click to expand...



Dipshit....please.....I ask again, how does forcing law abiding, non criminals to get a license for their gun reduce gun violence, since the law abiding who can actually own guns in the first place, and who do not commit crime with guns, are not the ones murdering people?

How does a license stop someone from using a gun to commit gun crime, especially if they are already a criminal and already banned from using a gun in the first place....considering most of all shootings are done by these very criminals, and not normal people who all of a sudden decide to shoot someone.

your devotion to Licensing guns owners has as much chance at doing what you claim as simply spreading pixie dust on the guns.......

You still have not explained the mechanism by which licensing gun owners keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the problem with debating you libs.  When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else.  I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings?  WTF is that about?  What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate?  Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook.  We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else.  There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I am a Virginia Tech alum.  I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered.  I also worked across the street from the World Trade center.  A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away.  None of those places seemed dangerous at all.  Particularly as you say during the day.  I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it.  Violence is around us and you just don't know.  The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.
> 
> I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's cool, yes, New Fairfield is right there.  We looked at houses in both New Fairfield and Newtown and settled on Brookfield.  My kids were too old at the time of the shooting to be there, but they could have gone to that school
Click to expand...

I used to hunt where that school is in Newtown Some former "associates" died in a shoot out about 1/4 mile away.
You may not be aware, but before Candlewood Lake was created in the 30's, New Fairfield extended almost to US 7 on the east side of the lake. It remained part of New Fairfield until the 50's.
The 45 minute run for the fire department and road crews made it logical to turn the area known as Candlewood Shores over to Brookfield.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't realize how you just dismantled all of your anti gun arguments do you......
> 
> In each case we have laws that apply.....after they are broken, not before......
> 
> Again, you posted a whole list of MADD achievments......and not one of them affects drivers until they break the law....
> 
> What you want is in effect to require all Americans to have a breathalyzer in their cars, in case they might be drunk.....You want the same effect for gun owners...before they commit any crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
Click to expand...



Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
Click to expand...



Total number of accidental gun deaths for children in 2013.....69.

Total number of gun murders of children in 2013....138....

In a country of over 320 million...

Leading cause of death for children in the U.S......cars.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
Click to expand...



Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......

Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"  I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.
Click to expand...



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would  push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......*35,369*

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013..*.29,001*

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...*30,208*
Accidental drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 69  ( in a country of 320 million people)*


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

*2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505*
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
Click to expand...



Here you go...before I go and find the coverage of the FBI mass shooting thing being wrong, here is ultra left wing whack job Mother Jones and their stats on mass shootings in the U.S.......look at how many people have been killed in mass shootings...according to this anti gun, left wing, nut job site...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014.....   9
2013.....   36
2012.....  72
2011.....  19


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
Click to expand...



Wow...5 seconds to find it.....

The FBI's bogus report on mass shootings

It’s disheartening to see the FBI used to promote a political agenda, but that’s what we got with the bureau’s release last month of a study claiming to show a sharp rise in mass shootings, a la Newtown, Conn.

The FBI counted 160 “mass” or “active” shootings in public places from 2000 to 2013. Worse, it said these attacks rose from just one in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Media outlets worldwide gave the “news” extensive coverage.

Too bad the study is remarkably shoddy — slicing the evidence to distort the results. In fact, mass public shootings have only risen ever so slightly over the last four decades.

While the FBI study discusses “mass shootings or killings,” its graphs were filled with cases that had nothing to do with mass killings. 

Of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
Click to expand...



Oh...and here is another article on how the FBI has been infected by anti gun extremists who will lie to push their agenda.........and dupes like you will believe it....and perpetuate the lie....

Sadly, you will have to subscribe to the WSJ...so I'll find another source...

Obama’s Gun-Control Misfire


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments.  It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point.  I did the same.
> 
> Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.
> 
> I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack.  The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost.  Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.
> 
> Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance.  Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain.  Word got out and the epidemic waned.
> 
> The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.
> 
> Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally.  Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say?  People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.
> 
> I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was.  My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my  ATM machine.
> 
> Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not.  That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.
> 
> Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were.  We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US.  In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook.  We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else.  There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook.  I am a Virginia Tech alum.  I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered.  I also worked across the street from the World Trade center.  A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away.  None of those places seemed dangerous at all.  Particularly as you say during the day.  I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it.  Violence is around us and you just don't know.  The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.
> 
> I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's cool, yes, New Fairfield is right there.  We looked at houses in both New Fairfield and Newtown and settled on Brookfield.  My kids were too old at the time of the shooting to be there, but they could have gone to that school
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to hunt where that school is in Newtown Some former "associates" died in a shoot out about 1/4 mile away.
> You may not be aware, but before Candlewood Lake was created in the 30's, New Fairfield extended almost to US 7 on the east side of the lake. It remained part of New Fairfield until the 50's.
> The 45 minute run for the fire department and road crews made it logical to turn the area known as Candlewood Shores over to Brookfield.
Click to expand...


That's interesting, and no, I did not know that.  My oldest daughter's best friend lived in Brookfield right on Candlewood Lake.  The house we wanted the most was in New Fairfield.  It was on a hillside and had a spectacular view from three floors looking across the border into New York.  A builder built the house and lived in it himself.  Ironically he never finished it, we figured it would take at least $75-100K to finish it.  But he was pricing it as if it was perfect and complete.  We wanted some reduction for the work we had to do and he refused, so we passed.  We ended up buying at the top of the hill overlooking Brookfield, we got a great view in a completed house.  We lived on Pocono Ridge Road if you're familiar with that street


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
Click to expand...



Here you go...from Time......on how the FBI lied in their report...

http://time.com/3432950/fbi-mass-shooting-report-misleading/

One of the problems, they say, lies with the definition of “active shooter” and “mass shooter.” The FBI report analyzed “active shooter” incidents generally, a term defined by the federal government as an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill others in a confined and populated area. (The FBI report modified that definition a bit to include multiple individuals as well as events in locations not considered “confined.”)

The problem in conflating the two terms, Fox argues, is that an active shooter doesn’t necessarily have to kill anyone. *And in fact, only 64 incidents involving “active shooters” met the federal government’s definition of a “mass killing,” in which three or more people were murdered in a single incident. In 31 incidents identified by the FBI report, no one was killed.*

*“A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters,” Fox says. “A majority kill fewer than three.”*

*If active shooters are removed from the equation, Fox says, mass shootings in fact have not been rising over the last few decades, and both the number of incidents and the number of victims has remained relatively steady since the 1970s.*

Fox and Duwe are also critical of the report’s methodology. *To collect many of the incidents, the FBI’s researchers often combed through news reports. But the term “active shooter” has only been in use within the last few years, Fox says, which may have skewed the numbers in favor of more recent events, possibly making it look as if shootings are rising.*


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
Click to expand...


It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.

Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The animal will die. More likely a cruel death from starvation or predators. It will feed scavengers and maggots.
> It's just cold hard facts. I choose to control the death and use it to my advantage.
> You don't. You rely on others to kill your meat. Does that make you superior?
Click to expand...


Yup, a real Saint.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer.  and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has
Click to expand...


Hunting for survival is one thing. But what you tards do, is cowardly and brutal.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that
Click to expand...


Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
Click to expand...


Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
Click to expand...


Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
Click to expand...


Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
Click to expand...



Except for the gay, racist black guy who killed those two people...right?


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
Click to expand...



Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the gay, racist black guy who killed those two people...right?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....
Click to expand...


You too have come out of the closet to raise a Nazi Salute; be careful, the Nazi plan sent gays, gypsies and the mentally challenged to the ovens.  You'd be safer saving your salute for the Liberal Party's bleeding heart brigade.  They'd consider you special, I don't.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
Click to expand...


None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate.  In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.
> 
> You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........
> 
> Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....
Click to expand...


Why do you make stuff up?  Doing so provides more evidence of your ... be nice wry ... er.... challenges.

Legislative Analyst's Office


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You too have come out of the closet to raise a Nazi Salute, be careful, the Nazi plan sent gays, gypsies and the mentally challenged to the ovens.  You'd be safer saving your salute for the Liberal Party's bleeding heart brigade.  They'd consider you special, I don't.
Click to expand...



Asswipe...what the fuck are you talking about...if anyone is close to the nazi philosophy it is you and the other lefites here on U.S. since you love big government and hate people.  

As a modern American Conservative I and others are the farthest from the nazi belief system as you can get...we believe that all men are created equal, we believe in the Bill of Rights and the rights of the individual over group rights, we believe in a small, limited government checked by a balance of powers and a separation of powers.....

You are the assholes who support socialism and all it's evils..thinking this time you can get it right...those first 100 million that were murdered in the pursuit of big government solutions to humanities problems...just some eggs that needed breaking...but the next 100 million should do the trick...

You have been shown to be a moron, and an asswipe...and stupid to boot.....so before you accuse innocent people of being the exact opposite of what they are you should get your own house in order...shithead.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.
> 
> You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........
> 
> Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  Doing so provides more evidence of your ... be nice wry ... er.... challenges.
> 
> Legislative Analyst's Office
Click to expand...



You still haven't explained how licensing law abiding gun owners keeps guns out of the hands of criminals or stops gun crime or mass shooting.......keep ignoring the question because you know you can't....get out your pixie dust...that will be more effective than licensing the people who don't commit gun crime.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.
> 
> You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........
> 
> Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  Doing so provides more evidence of your ... be nice wry ... er.... challenges.
> 
> Legislative Analyst's Office
Click to expand...



Dipshit...to make your point you have to show both sides....not just how much it costs to keep a violent criminal in  prison....how much does it cost to let a criminal commit crime on a daily basis...you twit.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.
> 
> You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........
> 
> Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  Doing so provides more evidence of your ... be nice wry ... er.... challenges.
> 
> Legislative Analyst's Office
Click to expand...



Here you go asswipe....a look at the cost of criminals when they aren't locked up.....

*1. Introduction*
Crime generates substantial costs to society at individual, community, and national levels. In the United States, more than 23 million criminal offenses were committed in 2007, resulting in approximately $15 billion in economic losses to the victims and $179 billion in government expenditures on police protection, judicial and legal activities, and corrections (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004a, 2007a, 2008). Programs that directly or indirectly prevent crime can therefore generate substantial economic benefits by reducing crime-related costs incurred by victims, communities, and the criminal justice system.

The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program Evaluation

This jury compensation approach for calculating intangible victim costs was later combined with direct victim cost data from 1987 to 1990 to estimate more broadly the per-offense cost of crime across four crime categories (rape, assault, robbery, and arson). Estimates from Miller and colleagues (1993) (first reported in 1989 U.S. dollars) were $4.1 million for a murder, $80,403 for a rape/sexual assault, $24,987 for an aggravated assault, $33,036 for a robbery, and $41,900 for an act of arson.

So if a rapist rapes 3 women before he is caught.........241,209 dollars.....in just this one study....how much does it cost to keep the asshole locked up.....

Let's say he is a murderer and murders one of the three, as happened in Colorado when the rapist who raped the woman who could not carry her gun on campus, murdered his 3rd victim....

so 2 rapes....160,806

plus the murder.....4.1 million....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
Click to expand...


Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed. 

I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.
> 
> You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........
> 
> Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  Doing so provides more evidence of your ... be nice wry ... er.... challenges.
> 
> Legislative Analyst's Office
Click to expand...



So asswipe....your link says it costs California about 47,000 dolllars to keep the monster locked up....

How much does one rape cost......80,403 dollars....

do the fucking math asswipe......


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
Click to expand...


As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.
> 
> Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism.  I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.
> 
> Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hom.........
> I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
> Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
> Arrogance is about all you got.
> 
> Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory.  I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns.  You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.
> 
> BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Licensing people doesn't do anything.....not one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......to think it does points to your lack of intelligence.
> 
> You can't explain how licensing does anything you claim it does........
> 
> Incarceration was about 26,000 dollars a year...well worth the price considering how expensive having them on the street is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  Doing so provides more evidence of your ... be nice wry ... er.... challenges.
> 
> Legislative Analyst's Office
Click to expand...



And more research on the cost of a criminal running free.....

So, your link....47,000 dollars to keep the monster locked up...

How much does each crime he commits cost......

Rajkumar and French (1997) estimated the per-offense societal cost of crime across a broad list of offense categories and demonstrated the utility of these cost estimates in conducting benefit-cost analyses (BCA). They mapped out a two-pronged methodology that employed the cost-of-illness and jury compensation approaches to estimate the tangible and intangible components of the total cost of crime using data from the NCVS and UCR. 

*The study found aggravated assault to be the most costly crime category (murder was not included among the crime categories), with a total societal cost of $76,829 per offense (first reported in 1992 U.S. dollars). *


*The cost per offense for the other categories ranged from $32 for drug law violations to $33,143 for robbery.*


 The authors applied their cost estimates to outcome data from the Treatment Outcome Prospective Study (TOPS) to illustrate the potential economic benefits of drug abuse treatment. The total value of reductions in criminal activity (from baseline to the 1-year follow-up) ranged from $34.54 million to $52.83 million.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat'  Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting for survival is one thing. But what you tards do, is cowardly and brutal.
Click to expand...


But electrocuting a cow, cutting it's throat, shredding it, making it into patties and cooking it with cheese over and open flame, now that's civilized


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
Click to expand...


I don't know a single hunter who enjoys "killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun."  Do you mean fun like wearing high heels and fish net stockings and going on a gay pride parade like you do?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the gay, racist black guy who killed those two people...right?
Click to expand...


Yes, the problem was obviously that he's gay, they like to murder people


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
Click to expand...


Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the gay, racist black guy who killed those two people...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Gays seem to kill a lot of people


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
Click to expand...


Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
Click to expand...


LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting for survival is one thing. But what you tards do, is cowardly and brutal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But electrocuting a cow, cutting it's throat, shredding it, making it into patties and cooking it with cheese over and open flame, now that's civilized
Click to expand...



in most processing plants the electrocuting has been replaced with sending a piston into the brain by gas operation


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
Click to expand...


If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.
> 
> Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
Click to expand...


Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A flaming faggot like you tramps through Greenwich village mostly naked is a perverted act.  Take off the dress and wear normal clothing so you stop embarrassing normal gays like that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
Click to expand...


Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, most gay people i've met are pretty cool people. I can't say the same about gun-obsessed assholes i've come across. They're usually dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
Click to expand...


Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an ignoramus.  I mean that with all sincerity, and a liar.
> 
> In CA, city, county and state police (the CHP) run dragnets, always on holiday weekends - like this one - and advertise they will be out, fines, PA's and other sanctions have been passed by the legislature because they were lobbyed by members of MADD.  Producers of alcohol include phrases in the ads to remind people to drink responsibly, and to have a designated driver all a result of MADD's efforts to curb DUI's.
> 
> I doubt your abject ignorance is willful.  I should pity you, but I can't bring myself to do so since people like you perpetuate gun violence in America.
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
Click to expand...


101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban

There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
Click to expand...



Look asswipe....the brady gun bill did nothing with rifles......look at the FBI stats dipshit.......these are more recent but show how rare "Assault rifles" are used in crime......

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


----------



## danielpalos

(registering for) posse duty is a legitimate _police power_.



> Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.[2]


----------



## 2aguy

So dipshit...what do we learn from the Expanded Homicide Table 8 about weapons used to commit crimes...other than the fact that anti gun extremists are nuts for hating "assault rifles" considering how rare they are used in crime......


Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



Deaths by weapon category

All Rifles:  351

Knives: 1,836

Blunt objects:  623

Hands and feet: 817


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
Click to expand...


Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.

Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
Click to expand...



You won't realizet that any of the mass murders would have been done by pistols...that the media has created the desire for "assualt" rifles on the part of a few mass shooters...right?  Even Sandy Hook, one of the links you posted, he could have killed the same people with a pistol...they were kindergarten kids....

And of course.....it was a gun free zone......


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
Click to expand...



I am not a know it all...I have to find sources....

You, however, are a dumbshit...because you believe the crap the anti gun extremists spew....and you don't question it.....don't hate me, hate the people who lie to you and then make you a liar when you post their crap...

Don't be mad because I showed your link to be crap, and the FBI under obama fudging numbers, and I used multiple sources to do it....

Yes...you are angry, because you are dumb to use anti gun extremist stats.....get over it and learn from it dipshit.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
Click to expand...



Wow...thanks for the compliment...I love the stuff Stephanie posts....it drives asswipes like you crazy.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
Click to expand...



Straw Man ^^^


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a know it all...I have to find sources....
> 
> You, however, are a dumbshit...because you believe the crap the anti gun extremists spew....and you don't question it.....don't hate me, hate the people who lie to you and then make you a liar when you post their crap...
> 
> Don't be mad because I showed your link to be crap, and the FBI under obama fudging numbers, and I used multiple sources to do it....
> 
> Yes...you are angry, because you are dumb to use anti gun extremist stats.....get over it and learn from it dipshit.
Click to expand...


Thanks once again for you opinion (see, I don't hate you, I patronize you).


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
Click to expand...



Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
Click to expand...


Then I would have to say you don't know many hunters.


----------



## jon_berzerk

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
Click to expand...


just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal 

doesnt mean everyone is like that


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You won't realizet that any of the mass murders would have been done by pistols...that the media has created the desire for "assualt" rifles on the part of a few mass shooters...right?  Even Sandy Hook, one of the links you posted, he could have killed the same people with a pistol...they were kindergarten kids....
> 
> And of course.....it was a gun free zone......
Click to expand...



it isnt a matter of not realizing it 

it is a matter of admitting it


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.
> 
> God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You too have come out of the closet to raise a Nazi Salute; be careful, the Nazi plan sent gays, gypsies and the mentally challenged to the ovens.  You'd be safer saving your salute for the Liberal Party's bleeding heart brigade.  They'd consider you special, I don't.
Click to expand...

More ad hom bullshit not relevant to the post you quoted.

Look! Licensing and registration will not keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. You have as much as conceded that by your inability to prove it would. We know your bag of tricks is empty. Maybe now you should just bow out.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
Click to expand...

I like observing them close up, preferably on a plate.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
Click to expand...

Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...
> 
> How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting for survival is one thing. But what you tards do, is cowardly and brutal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But electrocuting a cow, cutting it's throat, shredding it, making it into patties and cooking it with cheese over and open flame, now that's civilized
Click to expand...

Of course It's uncivilized to get blood on your hands.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
Click to expand...

About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.
Click to expand...



I get it now.........he was really bad at selling guns.....a product that will sell itself to gun enthusiasts and he was such a bad sales person he was probably fired....and now, because those very people would not buy a gun from them he now calls them names out of spite....

Got it.....


----------



## Ernie S.

2aguy said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.........he was really bad at selling guns.....a product that will sell itself to gun enthusiasts and he was such a bad sales person he was probably fired....and now, because those very people would not buy a gun from them he now calls them names out of spite....
> 
> Got it.....
Click to expand...

Kind of like JoeB131 being denied health care because of his meth addiction.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
Click to expand...


So your standard is that you get a "hard on" when someone wastes a cow, puts it in the shredder and serves it to you cooked over a flame?  Seriously?  You're right, that is sick.  What is wrong with you?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the flamers like you with your pink boas and nuts in a sack in high heels, you're the ones who embarrass them.  You need to stop doing that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
Click to expand...


It doesn't sound like you have.  I think gays are people, you think they are saints with nothing but kindness and concern for their fellow man.  Or is that just what you tell the guys you want to stick it into?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> While spot checks piss me off, if you're sober when you roll up to a spot check, you go on your way. If not, you are arrested for DWI.
> DWI is against the law because of the clear and present danger of you killing yourself or others.
> I carry a weapon about 16 hours a day. I am not dangerous unless you come at me with a knife)
> I have carried concealed or open for 45 years. I have killed no one.
> Why further complicate my life because some gang banger in LA blew away another piece of shit over drug turf?
> How will forcing me to pay for a license keep a thug in Philly from getting a gun from the guy with the pimped out chevy down on the corner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
Click to expand...


You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> (registering for) posse duty is a legitimate _police power_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.[2]
Click to expand...


Yes, liberals do that all the time!  No wait, that's pussy duty...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:
> 
> Posted March 13, 2003
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides
> 
> _The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."
> 
> Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.
> 
> Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
Click to expand...


Just checking in.  How's your quest to make the streets safer for criminals to commit crimes going?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a know it all...I have to find sources....
Click to expand...


That's his problem, you keep embarrassing him with facts supported by research when all he can come up with are leftist op eds


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I would have to say you don't know many hunters.
Click to expand...


He is a hunter.  You can't say he doesn't hunt dick, he hunts dick all the time


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You too have come out of the closet to raise a Nazi Salute; be careful, the Nazi plan sent gays, gypsies and the mentally challenged to the ovens.  You'd be safer saving your salute for the Liberal Party's bleeding heart brigade.  They'd consider you special, I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hom bullshit not relevant to the post you quoted.
> 
> Look! Licensing and registration will not keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. You have as much as conceded that by your inability to prove it would. We know your bag of tricks is empty. Maybe now you should just bow out.
Click to expand...


Have you ever considered that he actually does want to make the streets safer for criminals?  At some point when every statement he makes supports that is his objective, you have to consider that maybe that actually is his objective


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like observing them close up, preferably on a plate.
Click to expand...


Wow, you just found common ground with Polly.  He likes his animals dead and close up on a plate too.  Preferably with fries and coleslaw.  He's civilized you know, he just wants someone else to kill and carve it up for him


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you'll run away and hide, but once again, explain the moral superiority of someone killing a cow for you and what defense the cow has
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting for survival is one thing. But what you tards do, is cowardly and brutal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But electrocuting a cow, cutting it's throat, shredding it, making it into patties and cooking it with cheese over and open flame, now that's civilized
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course It's uncivilized to get blood on your hands.
Click to expand...


Agreed, that's what the help is for


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.
Click to expand...


Sports imply competition.  It's why there are handicaps, used to level the playing field.  Hunting requires skills and challenges but the risks to prey and hunter are unequal.  

Your post was a classic Straw Man, a logical fallacy.  To make hunting a true sport, hunters should hunt the most dangerous game, other hunters. Or, take up Paint Ball, it's challenging and requires skill too. Of course coming home covered in paint is not as manly as bring home the head of an animal.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.........he was really bad at selling guns.....a product that will sell itself to gun enthusiasts and he was such a bad sales person he was probably fired....and now, because those very people would not buy a gun from them he now calls them names out of spite....
> 
> Got it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kind of like JoeB131 being denied health care because of his meth addiction.
Click to expand...


Is he still pounding that lie?  He finally admitted he actually got fired for sucking at his job and they didn't deny him healthcare, he just blamed them firing for him on that their healthcare costs rose.  He kept talking about what a mammoth number it was.  Turns out it was only $20K.  It's a terrible liar.  Anyway, I have him on ignore.  I got tired of his obsession with that everyone who disagrees with him is a racist who doesn't like "brown people."  I started putting all the race whores on ignore and I enjoy the site a lot more now.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sports imply competition.  It's why there are handicaps, used to level the playing field.  Hunting requires skills and challenges but the risks to prey and hunter are unequal.
> 
> Your post was a classic Straw Man, a logical fallacy.  To make hunting a true sport, hunters should hunt the most dangerous game, other hunters. Or, take up Paint Ball, it's challenging and requires skill too. Of course coming home covered in paint is not as manly as bring home the head of an animal.
Click to expand...


And cows in your slaughter houses have what chance?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm correct, and if by licensing we can prevent gun violence, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
Click to expand...


You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
Click to expand...


Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?
> 
> More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just checking in.  How's your quest to make the streets safer for criminals to commit crimes going?
Click to expand...


stupid comment, again.  You are beginning to challenge Stephanie and CrusaderFrank in the idiot-gram competition.  Though, 2aguy and M14 are close in that category.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody even needed to read the study.  FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's.  Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime.  Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones.  This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
> 
> There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it.  We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0
> 
> "There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"
> 
> *Here's a list of school shootings:*
> 
> Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, they admitted they got that wrong...they ginned up the numbers with shootings and other things that aren't mass shootings....nice try though......
> 
> Of course, guys like you have to lie...the truth, and reality show you are wrong about just about everything, especially guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Oh sob, I have sinned.  Please forgive me oh great and wonderful know-it-all.
> 
> Feel better?  Now F off asshole, you've proven to be the male equivalent of Stephanie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just checking in.  How's your quest to make the streets safer for criminals to commit crimes going?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stupid comment, again.  You are beginning to challenge Stephanie and CrusaderFrank in the idiot-gram competition.  Though, 2aguy and M14 are close in that category.
Click to expand...


That's what you're working towards, Holmes.  You get to be measured on your actions, not the empty words behind them and your actions are consistently working towards that goal, you are working to make the streets safer for criminals


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
Click to expand...


Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.

You've proven to be both.

Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.

I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.

Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sports imply competition.  It's why there are handicaps, used to level the playing field.  Hunting requires skills and challenges but the risks to prey and hunter are unequal.
> 
> Your post was a classic Straw Man, a logical fallacy.  To make hunting a true sport, hunters should hunt the most dangerous game, other hunters. Or, take up Paint Ball, it's challenging and requires skill too. Of course coming home covered in paint is not as manly as bring home the head of an animal.
Click to expand...


I just get sick of all the phony boloney from the left.  If you hate guns, just come out and say you hate guns.  At least you're honest that way.  But all this mumbo jumbo about how you care for the animals, or care for the children, or care bout suicidal people is all BS.  You just hate guns period.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.........he was really bad at selling guns.....a product that will sell itself to gun enthusiasts and he was such a bad sales person he was probably fired....and now, because those very people would not buy a gun from them he now calls them names out of spite....
> 
> Got it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kind of like JoeB131 being denied health care because of his meth addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he still pounding that lie?  He finally admitted he actually got fired for sucking at his job and they didn't deny him healthcare, he just blamed them firing for him on that their healthcare costs rose.  He kept talking about what a mammoth number it was.  Turns out it was only $20K.  It's a terrible liar.  Anyway, I have him on ignore.  I got tired of his obsession with that everyone who disagrees with him is a racist who doesn't like "brown people."  I started putting all the race whores on ignore and I enjoy the site a lot more now.
Click to expand...


You don't need to continue to prove you're an asshole, it's becoming common knowledge to all those with at least average intelligence.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
Click to expand...


All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.  

I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.  

So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sports imply competition.  It's why there are handicaps, used to level the playing field.  Hunting requires skills and challenges but the risks to prey and hunter are unequal.
> 
> Your post was a classic Straw Man, a logical fallacy.  To make hunting a true sport, hunters should hunt the most dangerous game, other hunters. Or, take up Paint Ball, it's challenging and requires skill too. Of course coming home covered in paint is not as manly as bring home the head of an animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just get sick of all the phony boloney from the left.  If you hate guns, just come out and say you hate guns.  At least you're honest that way.  But all this mumbo jumbo about how you care for the animals, or care for the children, or care bout suicidal people is all BS.  You just hate guns period.
Click to expand...


I don't even hate you.  And, I do give to the ASPCA and to an organization which financially supports the suicide hotline.  I also coached LL and CYO Basketball,  volunteered at the school my kids attended and in my career ran the domestic violence unit, working for over five years to protect women and children from assholes, bullies and overall jerks.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
Click to expand...


That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.

If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.





So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.

OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?  

There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?  

I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.

You're a deep shade of stupid.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Click to expand...


It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.   

But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
Click to expand...


Fuck you!

"See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.

I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.


----------



## danielpalos

regulating well, the Badness out of gun lovers who may need more practice being entitled to the character of a "_well regulated militia_"; and, acquire and possess for our Republic and States, better aqueducts and better roads, as a capital fine bonus, besides.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
Click to expand...


You need to have content to post it, so of course your attacks are short and your posts are continually non responses to the question .  You got nothing upstairs or down


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> regulating well, the Badness out of gun lovers who may need more practice being entitled to the character of a "_well regulated militia_"; and, acquire and possess for our Republic and States, better aqueducts and better roads, as a capital fine bonus, besides.



Is that what you do in Canada?  I would think you'd have a lot of guns up there


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
Click to expand...


"criminals just buy an illegal gun"!

What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?

Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.

You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.

Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to have content to post it, so of course your attacks are short and your posts are continually non responses to the question .  You got nothing upstairs or down
Click to expand...


LOL, you echo yourself.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to have content to post it, so of course your attacks are short and your posts are continually non responses to the question .  You got nothing upstairs or down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you echo yourself.
Click to expand...


Read the post above, proof you're a lair and an asshole.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> regulating well, the Badness out of gun lovers who may need more practice being entitled to the character of a "_well regulated militia_"; and, acquire and possess for our Republic and States, better aqueducts and better roads, as a capital fine bonus, besides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you do in Canada?  I would think you'd have a lot of guns up there
Click to expand...

nope; just a bunch of bananas looking for some quality hammock time.


----------



## danielpalos

why does it sometimes seem like our friends on the right don't really have any use for Capitalism.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
Click to expand...


selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Click to expand...


I think any one of us would do what it takes to prevent a mass shooting or simple murders, but as we all know, licensing a gun will do none of that because murderers don't use legal guns unless it's a murder/ suicide.  And the only place licensing would happen is in the sales of legal guns. 

As for all those illegal guns that criminals use, it won't change one thing.


----------



## Wry Catcher

jon_berzerk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
Click to expand...


True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act



Bam, the first point you processed.  They are CRIMINALS.  That's quite a breakthrough for you



Wry Catcher said:


> Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed



Really?  Then why in Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora and the other mass slaughters were there so many bodies and no one shooting back?  Even in the freaking Washington NAVY yard there were no guns to be found in a victim pool of gun owners.

Here's the 411, sparky, having a gun at home in your safe isn't defense when you're being shot.  Now, can you get a second point or are you still just too proud of yourself for figuring out that criminals don't follow the law


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to have content to post it, so of course your attacks are short and your posts are continually non responses to the question .  You got nothing upstairs or down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you echo yourself.
Click to expand...


Sorry, can't help myself.  I speak into your head and have to keep amusing myself with the echo


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Click to expand...


Yes, everything for you is about socialism.  Your thirst for other people's money.  That comment has nothing to do with guns where we want our rights unrestricted


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to have content to post it, so of course your attacks are short and your posts are continually non responses to the question .  You got nothing upstairs or down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you echo yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the post above, proof you're a lair and an asshole.
Click to expand...




Now you're calling yourself "a liar and an asshole?"


----------



## kaz

jon_berzerk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
Click to expand...


That is the perfect stupidity of Wry:

- Murder is illegal

- So how do you stop murderers?  Make their buying a gun illegal.

Because of course ... murderers ... won't break the law ... to break the law ...

Um, OK?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> why does it sometimes seem like our friends on the right don't really have any use for Capitalism.



Seems our friends on the left don't know what liberalism actually means


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think any one of us would do what it takes to prevent a mass shooting or simple murders, but as we all know, licensing a gun will do none of that because murderers don't use legal guns unless it's a murder/ suicide.  And the only place licensing would happen is in the sales of legal guns.
> 
> As for all those illegal guns that criminals use, it won't change one thing.
Click to expand...


What defines an illegal gun?

BTW, I've not suggested the gun be licensed, only the person who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun. This does not mean gun registration - something I've not proposed - and thus a license allows for one gun or many guns.

Point of fact, some of the mass murderers used a gun they legally purchased.  Some of them had known psychiatric problems, hipaa might need to be looked at in terms of gun of licensing, making it mandatory to notify the licensing agency if the mental health professional believes their patient is potentially violent and or has made threats.  Family members could also make such a statement, under penalty of perjury, if they feel a member of their family is potentially violent and should not be licensed.

Point of Fact:  I'm not writing the law, doing so requires much more detail then I'm willing to post.  It's awfully easy for others to simply write, "ain't if awful" and call me stupid, a common response by those who have no interest in mitigating gun violence in our country.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why does it sometimes seem like our friends on the right don't really have any use for Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems our friends on the left don't know what liberalism actually means
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean; my good hammock.  

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> What defines an illegal gun?



Guns that aren't bought legally



Wry Catcher said:


> BTW, I've not suggested the gun be licensed, only the person who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun. This does not mean gun registration - something I've not proposed - and thus a license allows for one gun or many guns.



Gotcha, and that way unlicensed people can't get any of the 310 million guns in the United States, it wouldn't be legal



Wry Catcher said:


> Point of fact, some of the mass murderers used a gun they legally purchased.  Some of them had known psychiatric problems, hipaa might need to be looked at in terms of gun of licensing, making it mandatory to notify the licensing agency if the mental health professional believes their patient is potentially violent and or has made threats.  Family members could also make such a statement, under penalty of perjury, if they feel a member of their family is potentially violent and should not be licensed.
> 
> Point of Fact:  I'm not writing the law, doing so requires much more detail then I'm willing to post.  It's awfully easy for others to simply write, "ain't if awful" and call me stupid, a common response by those who have no interest in mitigating gun violence in our country.



Point of fact, we license guns now and in shooting after shooting there is a big body count and no one shooting back.  Your solutions:

- Let's do what we do now, licenses!  It's working so well

- Prove me wrong!

I did, the big body counts with no one shooting back.  The Washington Navy Yard where actual military people weren't allowed to carry guns is the epitome of how stupid the system you support works.  Why did he go there?  He knew no one would be shooting back.  Ditto Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc.  They pick gun free zones for a reason.  Do you know what that reason is?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think any one of us would do what it takes to prevent a mass shooting or simple murders, but as we all know, licensing a gun will do none of that because murderers don't use legal guns unless it's a murder/ suicide.  And the only place licensing would happen is in the sales of legal guns.
> 
> As for all those illegal guns that criminals use, it won't change one thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What defines an illegal gun?
> 
> BTW, I've not suggested the gun be licensed, only the person who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun. This does not mean gun registration - something I've not proposed - and thus a license allows for one gun or many guns.
> 
> Point of fact, some of the mass murderers used a gun they legally purchased.  Some of them had known psychiatric problems, hipaa might need to be looked at in terms of gun of licensing, making it mandatory to notify the licensing agency if the mental health professional believes their patient is potentially violent and or has made threats.  Family members could also make such a statement, under penalty of perjury, if they feel a member of their family is potentially violent and should not be licensed.
> 
> Point of Fact:  I'm not writing the law, doing so requires much more detail then I'm willing to post.  It's awfully easy for others to simply write, "ain't if awful" and call me stupid, a common response by those who have no interest in mitigating gun violence in our country.
Click to expand...


What is an illegal gun?  One that is stolen which there are plenty around. 

Okay, so we all get licenses to own our guns.  Now government has a database of who is legal to have a gun.  So how does that effect the person not using a legal gun from murdering one or several people?  

In comparison, it's like saying we need to register bicycles to stop auto theft.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  And when was the last mass murder that took place in this country with a legally registered firearm in the killers name?


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done.  When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.
> 
> How pitiful is that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You too have come out of the closet to raise a Nazi Salute; be careful, the Nazi plan sent gays, gypsies and the mentally challenged to the ovens.  You'd be safer saving your salute for the Liberal Party's bleeding heart brigade.  They'd consider you special, I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hom bullshit not relevant to the post you quoted.
> 
> Look! Licensing and registration will not keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. You have as much as conceded that by your inability to prove it would. We know your bag of tricks is empty. Maybe now you should just bow out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered that he actually does want to make the streets safer for criminals?  At some point when every statement he makes supports that is his objective, you have to consider that maybe that actually is his objective
Click to expand...

No doubt... It's all about votes. Gang bangers vote D.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.........he was really bad at selling guns.....a product that will sell itself to gun enthusiasts and he was such a bad sales person he was probably fired....and now, because those very people would not buy a gun from them he now calls them names out of spite....
> 
> Got it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kind of like JoeB131 being denied health care because of his meth addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he still pounding that lie?  He finally admitted he actually got fired for sucking at his job and they didn't deny him healthcare, he just blamed them firing for him on that their healthcare costs rose.  He kept talking about what a mammoth number it was.  Turns out it was only $20K.  It's a terrible liar.  Anyway, I have him on ignore.  I got tired of his obsession with that everyone who disagrees with him is a racist who doesn't like "brown people."  I started putting all the race whores on ignore and I enjoy the site a lot more now.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if he's still pushing it. It seems he's been scarce lately, or perhaps I put him on ignore too.
Glad to see he came clean about something. Is he still citing Kellerman's 43X number?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  There is no evidence that licensing will prevent anything.  One of the reasons the Brady Bill was never renewed is because all statistics pointed that it didn't do anybody any good.  It didn't save lives, it didn't help police, all it really did is put more government control on law-abiding citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
Click to expand...

Thanks for conceding defeat.
Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> 
> 
> About the 90th time you mentioned that you sold guns. Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now.........he was really bad at selling guns.....a product that will sell itself to gun enthusiasts and he was such a bad sales person he was probably fired....and now, because those very people would not buy a gun from them he now calls them names out of spite....
> 
> Got it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kind of like JoeB131 being denied health care because of his meth addiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he still pounding that lie?  He finally admitted he actually got fired for sucking at his job and they didn't deny him healthcare, he just blamed them firing for him on that their healthcare costs rose.  He kept talking about what a mammoth number it was.  Turns out it was only $20K.  It's a terrible liar.  Anyway, I have him on ignore.  I got tired of his obsession with that everyone who disagrees with him is a racist who doesn't like "brown people."  I started putting all the race whores on ignore and I enjoy the site a lot more now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure if he's still pushing it. It seems he's been scarce lately, or perhaps I put him on ignore too.
> Glad to see he came clean about something. Is he still citing Kellerman's 43X number?
Click to expand...


I don't know, remember, I have him on ignore.  But Kellerman is certainly the crap he would cite.

The Kellerman methodology.  Pick a conclusion you want, then support it the best you can


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.
Click to expand...


Camo-wearing dunces hunt with bows too.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which tree to sit in? I DO. Because there is so much more to hunting than taking the shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man ^^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a straw man to say your only concern is the animal doesn't stand a chance.  That's not why he (she) hates hunters and hunting.  It has nothing to do with how much of a sport it is or isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Camo-wearing dunces hunt with bows too.
Click to expand...


So when you wear your Camos with spiked heels and fishnet stockings with a big pink boa and go dick hunting, do the other gays love your manhood or do they spank you for being naughty?

Maybe you could wear a full camo outfit the next time you go to a slaughterhouse watching your food be killed for you.  The cow has such a chance, I know that's important to you


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
Click to expand...

DC, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California have all tried "it". "It" has been ineffective.


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I would have to say you don't know many hunters.
Click to expand...


Talked to one recently. Wanted to slap em silly. He was grinning ear to ear boasting about blowing a deer's spine apart. Had nothing to do with food or survival. He just enjoyed killing & maiming. Fuck em.


----------



## paulitician

jon_berzerk said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
Click to expand...


Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like observing them close up, preferably on a plate.
Click to expand...


Bet ya do. You're not well... Or a good person.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.



I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it.  All the crap posted by you and the flaming faggot Polly haven't proved anything beyond your collective incompetence.  

You're proposing a minor variation on what we do now, let's try an actually different plan.  One prescribed in the US Constitution.  One that works in the States that have moved that direction.

When your first plan failed, miserably, why do you get the second plan instead of our taking a stab at it?  Let's eliminate all the stupid, useless gun laws who only protect criminals


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'Sporting.' The animal has no chance. You're doing nothing but waiting. There's nothing sporting about that. Eventually an animal is gonna cross your path.
> 
> Shit, some of you tards even use attractants like salt blocks and deer sprays. Attracting a poor hungry animal to you so you can brutally murder it? Yeah, real challenging. Weird little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
Click to expand...


Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
Click to expand...


So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want more sporting, perhaps they could use bow and arrows, you know, like that dentist that shot that lion?    Of course, animals survive arrows more than bullets, then it lives as long as it can in pain and suffering.  But what the hell, at least it's more sporting for you, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
Click to expand...


Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flaming faggots like you dancing in the streets give all gays a bad name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, most gay people i've met don't enjoy killing & maiming innocent animals just for fun. So that puts them a cut above camo-wearing jackholes in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council with the sack of Chic F let sandwhiches and the gun with the intent on killing as many people as possible....only stopped by the security guard at the door, who he shot in the shoulder...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like observing them close up, preferably on a plate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bet ya do. You're not well... Or a good person.
Click to expand...


So straight up, Holmes.  Again, I'm a vegetarian.  Not for PETA reasons, I just like the diet.  I do eat fish and seafood as well.  But I don't eat any other animal based foods.  Your continued insistence that you're completely normal and moral for eating cows and chickens killed for you but people who kill their own food for themselves are sickos is frankly bizarre


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said, dimwitted arrogant jerkoffs. I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you don't even get it, simpleton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most gay people i've met have been cool people. Very kind folks. But most of the gun-obsessed folks i've met, tended to be dimwitted and arrogant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're hanging with the wrong crowd then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, i know Gun Nuts very well. Sadly, i sold a whole lot of firearms to em. Most were arrogant wingnuts. Have you ever even met a gay person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you have.  I think gays are people, you think they are saints with nothing but kindness and concern for their fellow man.  Or is that just what you tell the guys you want to stick it into?
Click to expand...


Honestly, most gay people i've met are very good people. Wouldn't hurt a fly. Now camo-wearing gun loons on the other hand? Many i've met are obsessed, hostile, and arrogant. Not very nice people. 

If you're someone who can get a hard-on over blowing a deers spine apart, i don't have much interest and hangin with ya. And you people who hate gay people probably haven't met any. So you can't make the call on such things.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that justifies getting a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart. Put the camo away for good. Enjoy observing nature and God's beautiful animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
Click to expand...


Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy nature and God's beautiful animals. You don't have to hide in that tree waiting to blow a deer's spine apart. You have options. It's a luxury you can take full advantage of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
Click to expand...


Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!

And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Honestly, most gay people i've met are very good people. Wouldn't hurt a fly. Now camo-wearing gun loons on the other hand? Many i've met are obsessed, hostile, and arrogant. Not very nice people.



Right, you aren't a bigot, you think all gays are good people and all gun owners are bad people.  So glad you let me know what an open mind you have.  



paulitician said:


> If you're someone who can get a hard-on over blowing a deers spine apart, i don't have much interest and hangin with ya. And you people who hate gay people probably haven't met any. So you can't make the call on such things.



Say what?  I love gay people.  Slow roasted on a spit, taste like chicken


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a hard on, now we're in your department.  You don't need to do it so publicly you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
Click to expand...


Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there are options.  As others have pointed out here, instead of killing your own meat, you can pay others to kill it for you that way you need not see how your meal was processed.
> 
> I don't have the heart to kill an animal, but that doesn't mean I don't want anybody to.  God made animals for us to eat, but I doubt you could ever reconcile that.  At least I can be honest about it as I sit here with my Big Mac typing on this keyboard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
Click to expand...


But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
Click to expand...


After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> As pointed out earlier, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They kill & maim just for fun.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
Click to expand...


Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
Click to expand...


Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
Click to expand...


I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.

As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
Click to expand...


Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
Click to expand...



Licensing people who don't commit crime with guns does not make it harder for criminals to get guns...that is the whole point...you cannot show how licensing law abiding, normal people keeps criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.....

As Ray pointed out....show us how that dynamic works..........otherwise admit your idea is simply pixie dust meant to harrass law abiding gun owners and possibly trip up unsuspecting gun owners who don't pay attention to the anti gun extremists and all of their silly laws.....


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
Click to expand...


Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
Click to expand...


Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
Click to expand...



It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....


How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
Click to expand...


Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
Click to expand...



Look....we know you couldn't sell a gun to save your life, and you are really bitter about it.  Don't blame the buyers, they like salemen who can actually do their job.......try another line of work.....like greeting at Wal Mart.....


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
Click to expand...



Did you know the gay, black, racist democrat who murdered those 2 people....or the gay guy who went to the Family Research Council because the racist Southern Poverty Law Center targeted them......?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
Click to expand...


Check out a gay parade, do they speak for all gays?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
Click to expand...


Yes, your dick has met their asshole.  I'm not getting into a stupid and irrelevant debate about who knows more gays.  It's irrelevant and it sounds childish.  You have no idea how many gays I know, and I'm not letting you draw me down that rat hole


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look....we know you couldn't sell a gun to save your life, and you are really bitter about it.  Don't blame the buyers, they like salemen who can actually do their job.......try another line of work.....like greeting at Wal Mart.....
Click to expand...


Isn't too difficult selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are what crack is to crack addicts. Like shooting fish in a barrel. However, i did grow tired of the loons. And i do regret selling firearms to so many of em. Many of them shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. But that's something i'll have to live with.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a gay parade, do they speak for all gays?
Click to expand...


Seriously, have you ever even met a gay person?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
Click to expand...



Okay...your stupid is showing again....



> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.



Buying a gun as a felon is already a criminal act, with existing law....no need to license anyone to do that today, right this minute.  True or False?



> Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.



What you want to do here is target people who are selling a gun to a neighbor, who may not understand that they can't sell a gun without a license because they aren't that into gun issues.  So you will focus your attention on one off, law abiding people who get tripped up by your brand new requirement to license everyone.

Of course, the real bad guys who knowingly sell large numbers of guns.....are already selling guns to felons who can't own guns and they already know they are breaking the law......and instead of focusing on them, through undercover stings, and getting felons to rat them out........you are more concerned with Joe Citizen selling his old hunting rifle to Bob the neighbor...........

Felons already know they can't buy guns or own them.  So if a law abiding citizen cells a gun, unknowingly to a felon......you can already arrest the felon if you catch him with the gun.....no license is needed because you can already arrest him under existing law.

We have already thought through every aspect of your proposal and we see it for what it is......you ignore the real criminals and focus on "getting" the normal, law abiding people who do a "one off" sale of a gun.....while the real traffickers go on their merry way.....because they already know what they are doing is illegal, and are selling large numbers of guns to criminals already.

Our way...you catch a felon with a gun and arrest them...use standard police techniques to find the real gun traffickers and set up an undercover sting to actually get the real bad guys, not Joe Citizen and Bob the Neighbor.....

And, you send in police to gun shows....you have them try to buy and sell guns, clearly either stating they can't pass background checks, or saying they will ignore background checks, and then arrest the buyers and sellers that way........

That is how you do it if you care about criminals with guns.....

If you only really care about law abiding, normal people who you want to punish for wanting to own guns, you do it your way......


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your dick has met their asshole.  I'm not getting into a stupid and irrelevant debate about who knows more gays.  It's irrelevant and it sounds childish.  You have no idea how many gays I know, and I'm not letting you draw me down that rat hole
Click to expand...


Cool. I just gave you my own personal experiences interacting with gay people and Gun Nuts. I found most gay people to be pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. However, many Gun Nuts freaked me out. Most were angry, obsessed, and paranoid. They could easily hurt someone... and truly enjoy it.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look....we know you couldn't sell a gun to save your life, and you are really bitter about it.  Don't blame the buyers, they like salemen who can actually do their job.......try another line of work.....like greeting at Wal Mart.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't too difficult selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are what crack is to crack addicts. Like shooting fish in a barrel. However, i did grow tired of the loons. And i do regret selling firearms to so many of em. Many of them shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. But that's something i'll have to live with.
Click to expand...



So....while the other sales people were selling guns like hot cakes, the actual gun enthusiasts sensed something odd about you and didn't buy anything from you.....got it.....no reason to be bitter about it....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
Click to expand...



It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....

A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.

Leave the law abiding alone.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look....we know you couldn't sell a gun to save your life, and you are really bitter about it.  Don't blame the buyers, they like salemen who can actually do their job.......try another line of work.....like greeting at Wal Mart.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't too difficult selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are what crack is to crack addicts. Like shooting fish in a barrel. However, i did grow tired of the loons. And i do regret selling firearms to so many of em. Many of them shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. But that's something i'll have to live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....while the other sales people were selling guns like hot cakes, the actual gun enthusiasts sensed something odd about you and didn't buy anything from you.....got it.....no reason to be bitter about it....
Click to expand...


I sold many. Like i said, it ain't too difficult selling a gun to an obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are like crack cocaine is for crack addicts.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
Click to expand...



Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
Click to expand...


Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
Click to expand...


If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think any one of us would do what it takes to prevent a mass shooting or simple murders, but as we all know, licensing a gun will do none of that because murderers don't use legal guns unless it's a murder/ suicide.  And the only place licensing would happen is in the sales of legal guns.
> 
> As for all those illegal guns that criminals use, it won't change one thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What defines an illegal gun?
> 
> BTW, I've not suggested the gun be licensed, only the person who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun. This does not mean gun registration - something I've not proposed - and thus a license allows for one gun or many guns.
> 
> Point of fact, some of the mass murderers used a gun they legally purchased.  Some of them had known psychiatric problems, hipaa might need to be looked at in terms of gun of licensing, making it mandatory to notify the licensing agency if the mental health professional believes their patient is potentially violent and or has made threats.  Family members could also make such a statement, under penalty of perjury, if they feel a member of their family is potentially violent and should not be licensed.
> 
> Point of Fact:  I'm not writing the law, doing so requires much more detail then I'm willing to post.  It's awfully easy for others to simply write, "ain't if awful" and call me stupid, a common response by those who have no interest in mitigating gun violence in our country.
Click to expand...




> BTW, I've not suggested the gun be licensed, only the person who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a gun. This does not mean gun registration - something I've not proposed - and thus a license allows for one gun or many guns.



How does this do anything to achieve what you say you want to achieve.  Criminals can't be licensed under your concept already under existing law...they already can't own or touch or carry a gun right now......no need to license anyone to do that.

The handfull of mass shooters who were nuts is tiny...tiny, to base implementing your policy on those events.  The various mass shooters who were nuts were not under any care by a psychaitrist or other professional that would ban their ability to get a gun....and once you implement that, then the more lucid nuts will make sure not to get any medical attention...dittos normal gun owners who may want to see a grief counselor, or family counselor...you will be teaching them to not get help with their minor problems for fear they will be put on a list.......


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
Click to expand...



No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.  

I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....

That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
Click to expand...



No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.

Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....

We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
Click to expand...


Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
Click to expand...


There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.
Click to expand...



If you sell a used car to a guy with a DUI and he drives the car and kills someone...are you on the hook for that?

No.

We are not cops....finding people breaking the law is their job, not ours.   The felon already knows he can't own the gun, if you catch him with it you can send him to jail without bothering the normal, law abiding citizen.  

Guns are legal products, and we are free citizens.  Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle or extra pistol to a neighbor is not the problem we have with guns in this country.  The problem is criminal gangs, stealing guns (which makes licensing gun owners useless), buying from criminal gun dealers ( which makes licensing law abiding gun owners useless), using a family or friend who has a license buy the gun for them and report it stolen (Which makes licensing gun owners useless), or buying a gun from someone who already stole it ( again, making licensing gun owners pointless)


With all those ways a criminal gets passed needing a license to own a gun, the paperwork, manpower and cost to license gun owners is pointless and stupid.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...



So if you sell your computer to a convicted child porn guy who is legally barred from ever touching a computer, which is one part of that conviction...are you on the hook for selling that computer to a known felon....

No.

Guns are no different.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...



Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.

I have one.  I have never committed a crime.

And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a used car to a guy with a DUI and he drives the car and kills someone...are you on the hook for that?
> 
> No.
> 
> We are not cops....finding people breaking the law is their job, not ours.   The felon already knows he can't own the gun, if you catch him with it you can send him to jail without bothering the normal, law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products, and we are free citizens.  Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle or extra pistol to a neighbor is not the problem we have with guns in this country.  The problem is criminal gangs, stealing guns (which makes licensing gun owners useless), buying from criminal gun dealers ( which makes licensing law abiding gun owners useless), using a family or friend who has a license buy the gun for them and report it stolen (Which makes licensing gun owners useless), or buying a gun from someone who already stole it ( again, making licensing gun owners pointless)
> 
> 
> With all those ways a criminal gets passed needing a license to own a gun, the paperwork, manpower and cost to license gun owners is pointless and stupid.
Click to expand...


You can spin it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, it's on you. You have to pay the price.


----------



## fanofthepower

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Simple stuff...outlaw guns, get rid of them...you don't have access to them because they don't exist...criminals don't have access to them because they don't exist...simple stuff.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need someone else to kill your cow to survive? At least hunters take responsibility, instead of facing the reality of life and death yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
Click to expand...


Actually it's both.  Hunters do enjoy hunting, but they also enjoy eating their kill.  Do you have this same hang-up with fishing too?  You know, those poor little fish being tricked that they are going to be eating something only to find out it's a lure with hooks on it?


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a used car to a guy with a DUI and he drives the car and kills someone...are you on the hook for that?
> 
> No.
> 
> We are not cops....finding people breaking the law is their job, not ours.   The felon already knows he can't own the gun, if you catch him with it you can send him to jail without bothering the normal, law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products, and we are free citizens.  Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle or extra pistol to a neighbor is not the problem we have with guns in this country.  The problem is criminal gangs, stealing guns (which makes licensing gun owners useless), buying from criminal gun dealers ( which makes licensing law abiding gun owners useless), using a family or friend who has a license buy the gun for them and report it stolen (Which makes licensing gun owners useless), or buying a gun from someone who already stole it ( again, making licensing gun owners pointless)
> 
> 
> With all those ways a criminal gets passed needing a license to own a gun, the paperwork, manpower and cost to license gun owners is pointless and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spin it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, it's on you. You have to pay the price.
Click to expand...



Sorry, I am not interested in tripping up law abiding people...considering licensing has never worked here in Illinois.....the gangs in Chicago don't seem to need licenses to get their guns and 80% of all gun crime in Chicago is by gang members........


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
Click to expand...


I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.


----------



## 2aguy

fanofthepower said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple stuff...outlaw guns, get rid of them...you don't have access to them because they don't exist...criminals don't have access to them because they don't exist...simple stuff.....
Click to expand...



Wow...you are a genius........

You know...we actually had a time when there were no guns on the planet.....and people butchered each other with swords, axes, spears and arrows.....and the weak were enslaved by the strong.

Then guns came along and the weak could actually fight off the strong and slavery was ended.......


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bam, the first point you processed.  They are CRIMINALS.  That's quite a breakthrough for you
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why in Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora and the other mass slaughters were there so many bodies and no one shooting back?  Even in the freaking Washington NAVY yard there were no guns to be found in a victim pool of gun owners.
> 
> Here's the 411, sparky, having a gun at home in your safe isn't defense when you're being shot.  Now, can you get a second point or are you still just too proud of yourself for figuring out that criminals don't follow the law
Click to expand...


Still being an asshole, I guess you always have been and always will be.  Fuck Off.  I'll respond when you are civil and not lying (a day that will never come).


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
Click to expand...



Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?

Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.

Are either of those on you?

Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a firearm to a neighbor who's a Felon, you will have to be held accountable. You have a responsibility. A small fine isn't gonna cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
Click to expand...


Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper. The 'I didn't know' defense isn't gonna cut it anymore.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a used car to a guy with a DUI and he drives the car and kills someone...are you on the hook for that?
> 
> No.
> 
> We are not cops....finding people breaking the law is their job, not ours.   The felon already knows he can't own the gun, if you catch him with it you can send him to jail without bothering the normal, law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products, and we are free citizens.  Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle or extra pistol to a neighbor is not the problem we have with guns in this country.  The problem is criminal gangs, stealing guns (which makes licensing gun owners useless), buying from criminal gun dealers ( which makes licensing law abiding gun owners useless), using a family or friend who has a license buy the gun for them and report it stolen (Which makes licensing gun owners useless), or buying a gun from someone who already stole it ( again, making licensing gun owners pointless)
> 
> 
> With all those ways a criminal gets passed needing a license to own a gun, the paperwork, manpower and cost to license gun owners is pointless and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spin it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, it's on you. You have to pay the price.
Click to expand...



So do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer.....in case the guy you sell it to is a convicted felon for identity theft?  If he then uses the computer you sold him to harm thousands of people...is that on you?


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  The felon already knows that they can't buy the gun...so when he is caught you arrest him on the spot...no need to license anyone, no need to punish the law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products.  It is no different when a person who has lost their license goes to buy a used car....you do not require the seller of the car to research the driving history of the buyer or hold him to account for abuse of the car by the drunk driver.   The same applies to guns.....
> 
> We are not cops.  It is not on us to investigate possible criminals on our own dime....catch the felon when they have the gun....you can already arrest them, they knowingly broke the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
Click to expand...



Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...

And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
Click to expand...


Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension. 

Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a used car to a guy with a DUI and he drives the car and kills someone...are you on the hook for that?
> 
> No.
> 
> We are not cops....finding people breaking the law is their job, not ours.   The felon already knows he can't own the gun, if you catch him with it you can send him to jail without bothering the normal, law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products, and we are free citizens.  Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle or extra pistol to a neighbor is not the problem we have with guns in this country.  The problem is criminal gangs, stealing guns (which makes licensing gun owners useless), buying from criminal gun dealers ( which makes licensing law abiding gun owners useless), using a family or friend who has a license buy the gun for them and report it stolen (Which makes licensing gun owners useless), or buying a gun from someone who already stole it ( again, making licensing gun owners pointless)
> 
> 
> With all those ways a criminal gets passed needing a license to own a gun, the paperwork, manpower and cost to license gun owners is pointless and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spin it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, it's on you. You have to pay the price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer.....in case the guy you sell it to is a convicted felon for identity theft?  If he then uses the computer you sold him to harm thousands of people...is that on you?
Click to expand...


Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DC, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California have all tried "it". "It" has been ineffective.
Click to expand...


Your opinion, or do you have evidence to support your comment?


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
Click to expand...


I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, but that's a hard sell. You sell a gun to a Felon, you have to be held accountable. It's on you. And a small fine probably isn't gonna suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a used car to a guy with a DUI and he drives the car and kills someone...are you on the hook for that?
> 
> No.
> 
> We are not cops....finding people breaking the law is their job, not ours.   The felon already knows he can't own the gun, if you catch him with it you can send him to jail without bothering the normal, law abiding citizen.
> 
> Guns are legal products, and we are free citizens.  Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle or extra pistol to a neighbor is not the problem we have with guns in this country.  The problem is criminal gangs, stealing guns (which makes licensing gun owners useless), buying from criminal gun dealers ( which makes licensing law abiding gun owners useless), using a family or friend who has a license buy the gun for them and report it stolen (Which makes licensing gun owners useless), or buying a gun from someone who already stole it ( again, making licensing gun owners pointless)
> 
> 
> With all those ways a criminal gets passed needing a license to own a gun, the paperwork, manpower and cost to license gun owners is pointless and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can spin it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, it's on you. You have to pay the price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer.....in case the guy you sell it to is a convicted felon for identity theft?  If he then uses the computer you sold him to harm thousands of people...is that on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.
Click to expand...



How is that apples and oranges......it is the same thing.  Would you also avoid selling your car or your computer until you do your due dilligence.....you don't think that human traffickers need computers to do their business....if you sold a computer to someone who was involved in trafficking young children...would you be on the hook for selling him the computer......considering some of them can't touch or buy a computer by law....as part of their sentence...so would be looking for a used computer with no paper trail?

The same thing.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you get a hard-on over blowing a deer's spine apart, you're a twisted fuck. It is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
Click to expand...


Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
Click to expand...



No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.  

They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
Click to expand...



So you don't support licensing gun owners?


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
Click to expand...


It's 'Trophy Hunting.' Check out an average hunting magazine. All those camo-wearing douchebags posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' I truly despise them.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
Click to expand...


No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't support licensing gun owners?
Click to expand...


No. I think most Illinois gun regulations are pitiful. That being said, you as the gun seller better do your due diligence before selling a firearm to anyone. You do have a responsibility.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
Click to expand...


You're not retired?  LOL, you seem to spend 20 hours a day posting, yet claim to own a restaurant (BTW, is it a Vegan Restaurant, or do you hire hunters to kill the food you sell?).


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
Click to expand...



Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?

What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?

We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
Click to expand...


So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
Click to expand...


Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
Click to expand...



You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
Click to expand...



And then you need to be on the hook for your car and your computer as well....since they are more destructive to life than guns.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
Click to expand...



Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year...so you need to do due dilligence when you sell your car...right...

gun murders in 2013....8,454...

MADD - Statistics

*EVERY DAY IN AMERICA, ANOTHER 28 PEOPLE DIE AS A RESULT OF DRUNK DRIVING CRASHES. 

*

*DRUNK DRIVING COSTS THE UNITED STATES $199 BILLION A YEAR. 

*

*TEEN ALCOHOL USE KILLS 4,700 PEOPLE EACH YEAR - THAT’S MORE THAN ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS COMBINED.

*

So....drunk drivers kill 10,220 people a year......vs. 8,454 by gun murder...

and in 2013...only 505 people died by gun accident......


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And then you need to be on the hook for your car and your computer as well....since they are more destructive to life than guns.
Click to expand...


Just warning you. I was in the gun selling business for years. The loopholes are being closed. So be careful. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you will be held accountable.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support Illinois gun regulations. But i can't let you slide if you sell a firearm to a Felon. You gotta go down. Sorry, but you knew the risks involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year...so you need to do due dilligence when you sell your car...right...
> 
> MADD - Statistics
Click to expand...


Background Checks are routinely conducted on Citizens for things like renting Apartments. So if i were you, i would look into backgrounds of those you're selling firearms to. It's the logical and safe thing to do. We as law abiding gun owners wanna do the right thing. Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...no you don't.....many gun owners buy a gun and then never keep up with the anti gun extremists and the laws they pass to specifically trip up law abiding gun owners.  To them the gun is no different than a fishing rod or a computer or a car.
> 
> They are not a criminal for selling their gun....you guys want to make them into criminals...I want to arrest real criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year...so you need to do due dilligence when you sell your car...right...
> 
> MADD - Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Background Checks are conducted on Citizens to merely rent Apartments. So if i were you, i would look into backgrounds of those you're selling firearms to. It's the logical and safe thing to do. We as law abiding gun owners wanna do the right thing. Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
Click to expand...




> Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.



And there you have it...exactly what the anti gun extremists want.....they could care less about career criminals...but they just salivate over catching some normal, good person who has no idea what the laws are.....


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's tripping you up. You sold the firearm. It's on you. There are processes you can engage in to make sure the purchaser isn't a Felon. If you choose not to do due diligence, you could pay a hefty price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year...so you need to do due dilligence when you sell your car...right...
> 
> MADD - Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Background Checks are conducted on Citizens to merely rent Apartments. So if i were you, i would look into backgrounds of those you're selling firearms to. It's the logical and safe thing to do. We as law abiding gun owners wanna do the right thing. Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it...exactly what the anti gun extremists want.....they could care less about career criminals...but they just salivate over catching some normal, good person who has no idea what the laws are.....
Click to expand...


Like i said, there are procedures and processes you can follow to make sure you're not selling a firearm to a Felon. They're not that complicated. You as the gun seller, are responsible. The 'I didn't know' defense won't work anymore.


----------



## fanofthepower

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are loopholes. But they'll be closed eventually. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you need to be held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
Click to expand...


Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...


----------



## paulitician

fanofthepower said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
Click to expand...


We as a Society especially need to reassess the practice of handing children firearms. Sadly, we do live in different times. Kids are bombarded with sex & violence 24/7. Handing them firearms is unnecessary and unwise.


----------



## 2aguy

fanofthepower said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
Click to expand...



wow, you are not smart.  Guns are designed to save the life of the user....that is why they were created.  they also provide food.  guns often keep people safe and no shots are ever fired.  most police never use their guns, yet the mere presence of a gun with a police keeps the peace and brings bad people into custody...no shots fired.   also, in most self defense situations, no shots are fired, the violent criminals run away or surrender.

Explain to a senior citizen that hey need to "man up".....or a woman facing 1 or more armed or unarmed men intent onrape or murder.....

Please engage your brain before you post...it would be really helpful...


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you need to do the same thing for computers...do you think that children aren't harmed or murdered because a pedophile has access to an illegal computer?
> 
> What about cars...a person without a license to drive can still kill with your car if you sell it to him...right?  And drunk drivers kill far more people than guns do...right?
> 
> We are not cops, and are not being paid to research the criminal history of people we know.  You want to trip up law abiding people, I don't.  Catch the criminals...don't make new ones who don't need to be made into criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year...so you need to do due dilligence when you sell your car...right...
> 
> MADD - Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Background Checks are conducted on Citizens to merely rent Apartments. So if i were you, i would look into backgrounds of those you're selling firearms to. It's the logical and safe thing to do. We as law abiding gun owners wanna do the right thing. Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it...exactly what the anti gun extremists want.....they could care less about career criminals...but they just salivate over catching some normal, good person who has no idea what the laws are.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, there are procedures and processes you can follow to make sure you're not selling a firearm to a Felon. They're not that complicated. You as the gun seller, are responsible. The 'I didn't know' defense won't work anymore.
Click to expand...



they are created to cost gun owners more money in order to infringe on a Right.  any added cost is an infringement, which is why we do not have poll taxes on the right to vote...so the same applies to guns.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Apples & Oranges. Just be very careful who you sell firearms to. You could be on the hook. And rightfully so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk drivers kill more people than guns each year...so you need to do due dilligence when you sell your car...right...
> 
> MADD - Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Background Checks are conducted on Citizens to merely rent Apartments. So if i were you, i would look into backgrounds of those you're selling firearms to. It's the logical and safe thing to do. We as law abiding gun owners wanna do the right thing. Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make a mistake you'll regret the rest of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you have it...exactly what the anti gun extremists want.....they could care less about career criminals...but they just salivate over catching some normal, good person who has no idea what the laws are.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, there are procedures and processes you can follow to make sure you're not selling a firearm to a Felon. They're not that complicated. You as the gun seller, are responsible. The 'I didn't know' defense won't work anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are created to cost gun owners more money in order to infringe on a Right.  any added cost is an infringement, which is why we do not have poll taxes on the right to vote...so the same applies to guns.
Click to expand...


Just letting you know. The loopholes are closing. Know the backgrounds of those you're selling firearms to. Cover your ass.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Prove to me it won't work or continue to be the fool and asshole you are.  The same challenge goes out to M14 and the dude from Cleveland - 2aguy is terminally stupid, thus I won't expect anything intelligible from that clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we've asked is that you prove the dynamics behind your idea, and you can't do it.
> 
> I myself have pointed out that the mass murders that we have seen had nothing to do with registration, purchases from gun shows, or licensing.  Whether legally allowed to have a firearm or not, they got one, usually through theft.
> 
> So we register all guns, now what?  Do you think that's going to stop one murder when you can get a gun on the street in less than ten minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the point.  Making it more difficult to get a gun.  Too fucking bad if it slightly infringes on your rights; I suspect you're one of those happy to make it more difficult to vote based on the meme that voter fraud is rampant.
> 
> If so, you too support the callous conservative ethos, "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...your stupid is showing again....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buying a gun as a felon is already a criminal act, with existing law....no need to license anyone to do that today, right this minute.  True or False?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you want to do here is target people who are selling a gun to a neighbor, who may not understand that they can't sell a gun without a license because they aren't that into gun issues.  So you will focus your attention on one off, law abiding people who get tripped up by your brand new requirement to license everyone.
> 
> Of course, the real bad guys who knowingly sell large numbers of guns.....are already selling guns to felons who can't own guns and they already know they are breaking the law......and instead of focusing on them, through undercover stings, and getting felons to rat them out........you are more concerned with Joe Citizen selling his old hunting rifle to Bob the neighbor...........
> 
> Felons already know they can't buy guns or own them.  So if a law abiding citizen cells a gun, unknowingly to a felon......you can already arrest the felon if you catch him with the gun.....no license is needed because you can already arrest him under existing law.
> 
> We have already thought through every aspect of your proposal and we see it for what it is......you ignore the real criminals and focus on "getting" the normal, law abiding people who do a "one off" sale of a gun.....while the real traffickers go on their merry way.....because they already know what they are doing is illegal, and are selling large numbers of guns to criminals already.
> 
> Our way...you catch a felon with a gun and arrest them...use standard police techniques to find the real gun traffickers and set up an undercover sting to actually get the real bad guys, not Joe Citizen and Bob the Neighbor.....
> 
> And, you send in police to gun shows....you have them try to buy and sell guns, clearly either stating they can't pass background checks, or saying they will ignore background checks, and then arrest the buyers and sellers that way........
> 
> That is how you do it if you care about criminals with guns.....
> 
> If you only really care about law abiding, normal people who you want to punish for wanting to own guns, you do it your way......
Click to expand...


I'm going to try to get you to understand.

Nah. it's not worth it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

fanofthepower said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
Click to expand...


You fall into this fantasy world as so many on the left do that we can get rid of guns. 

We can't get rid of guns.  You can make them as illegal as you desire but the bad people will always have them.  That's just the simple and plain truth.  

Since that is the case, we need to follow the advice of the NRA: The only way to take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
Click to expand...


you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I am saying a gun store needs to check.  A person selling one gun to a neighbor or even several shouldnt' be put in jail for it.   Guns are legal products just like cars.  I can sell a car to a person with a DUI who has had his license revoked without being penalized...the responsiblity is put on them, not me.   The felon already knows they can't buy the gun so if he is caught with the gun you can already arrest them, right now without licensing anyone.
> 
> I say for the non trafficker, put a fine on them.....also, put out PSA about never selling guns without knowing who you are selling them to.....
> 
> That is how you target actual criminals without violating the rights of normal citizens....
Click to expand...


felons would be excluded from having to apply for a license


----------



## jon_berzerk

fanofthepower said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
Click to expand...


crack pot


----------



## Wry Catcher

jon_berzerk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown
Click to expand...


Green.

So it's easier and less costly to buy a gun, buy ammo, buy a license, by tags if necessary, hike around for hours, shoot and maybe kill an animal, or follow it, if it is not put down immediately, carry it out, butcher it and either give away the meat or buy a freezer, than it is to go to the market, pick out a nice steak, fire up the grill or Big Green Egg, open a beer and relax.

Good to know.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wry Catcher said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Green.
> 
> So it's easier and less costly to buy a gun, buy ammo, buy a license, by tags if necessary, hike around for hours, shoot and maybe kill an animal, or follow it, if it is not put down immediately, carry it out, butcher it and either give away the meat or buy a freezer, than it is to go to the market, pick out a nice steak, fire up the grill or Big Green Egg, open a beer and relax.
> 
> Good to know.
Click to expand...

you are still full of shit


----------



## Wry Catcher

jon_berzerk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Green.
> 
> So it's easier and less costly to buy a gun, buy ammo, buy a license, by tags if necessary, hike around for hours, shoot and maybe kill an animal, or follow it, if it is not put down immediately, carry it out, butcher it and either give away the meat or buy a freezer, than it is to go to the market, pick out a nice steak, fire up the grill or Big Green Egg, open a beer and relax.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are still full of shit
Click to expand...


LOL, you're not, you lack ALL substance.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Green.
> 
> So it's easier and less costly to buy a gun, buy ammo, buy a license, by tags if necessary, hike around for hours, shoot and maybe kill an animal, or follow it, if it is not put down immediately, carry it out, butcher it and either give away the meat or buy a freezer, than it is to go to the market, pick out a nice steak, fire up the grill or Big Green Egg, open a beer and relax.
> 
> Good to know.
Click to expand...



Well I'll have you know something else:  Fisherman have to buy a boat, pay insurance, pay for the gasoline to propel the boat, rent a place for storage in the winter, purchase a fishing license and equipment all to go fishing. 

Do you suppose it's much cheaper for them to stop at the fish market to buy their fish instead of spending the tens of thousands of dollars that they do to catch fish themselves?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a gay parade, do they speak for all gays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously, have you ever even met a gay person?
Click to expand...


Seriously, have you ever met a gun owner?  If you want to be real, then go ahead and ask me a real question


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
Click to expand...


LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your dick has met their asshole.  I'm not getting into a stupid and irrelevant debate about who knows more gays.  It's irrelevant and it sounds childish.  You have no idea how many gays I know, and I'm not letting you draw me down that rat hole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. I just gave you my own personal experiences interacting with gay people and Gun Nuts. I found most gay people to be pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. However, many Gun Nuts freaked me out. Most were angry, obsessed, and paranoid. They could easily hurt someone... and truly enjoy it.
Click to expand...


No, you gave your bigoted leftists stereotype view, you repeated what Keith Olberman told you to.  You gave a cartoon answer, Holmes


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look....we know you couldn't sell a gun to save your life, and you are really bitter about it.  Don't blame the buyers, they like salemen who can actually do their job.......try another line of work.....like greeting at Wal Mart.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't too difficult selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are what crack is to crack addicts. Like shooting fish in a barrel. However, i did grow tired of the loons. And i do regret selling firearms to so many of em. Many of them shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. But that's something i'll have to live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....while the other sales people were selling guns like hot cakes, the actual gun enthusiasts sensed something odd about you and didn't buy anything from you.....got it.....no reason to be bitter about it....
Click to expand...


He couldn't sell hot chocolate to an eskimo


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hunt at all, dumb ass.  What part of I'm a vegetarian don't you grasp?  I do like to shoot targets, like skeet.  But I've not been out for a while.  When I retire I'd like to do that again and take up golf again.
> 
> As for the slaughterhouse, you're not a hypocrite for eating meat while everything you say is pure hypocrisy over your own diet and how they kill your animals if I work in a slaughterhouse?  You're going to have to explain that one.  It's vacuous ... even for you ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine sometime. All the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their tortured 'Trophies.' It's not about food or survival for them. Stick with golf. Now that's a sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Look....we know you couldn't sell a gun to save your life, and you are really bitter about it.  Don't blame the buyers, they like salemen who can actually do their job.......try another line of work.....like greeting at Wal Mart.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't too difficult selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are what crack is to crack addicts. Like shooting fish in a barrel. However, i did grow tired of the loons. And i do regret selling firearms to so many of em. Many of them shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. But that's something i'll have to live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So....while the other sales people were selling guns like hot cakes, the actual gun enthusiasts sensed something odd about you and didn't buy anything from you.....got it.....no reason to be bitter about it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sold many. Like i said, it ain't too difficult selling a gun to an obsessed Gun Nut. For them, guns & bullets are like crack cocaine is for crack addicts.
Click to expand...


Yes, and you said you couldn't sell guns to them.  How sad is that?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It ONLY infringes on our rights.  We jump through the hoops to get the legal gun.  Criminals just buy an illegal gun.  Here's the inside scoop on that homes, they're CRIMINALS.
> 
> But your plan to make the streets safer to commit crimes is working.  Nice body counts you're getting on these shootings, well done.  You must be very proud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "criminals just buy an illegal gun"!
> 
> What makes a gun illegal (within the context of your rant)?
> 
> Selling a gun to an unlicensed person would be a criminal act.  Assuming all convicted felons and persons on probation, parole or with outstanding warrants cannot have a license, or may have had one but is suspended based on such factors, anyone giving, selling, loaning such a gun is themselves a criminal, and thus no honest, law abiding citizen is infringed.
> 
> You're simply too biased or not bright enough to think through this suggestion, thus you rely on personal attacks and whine about your rights, when there are real victims whose rights are violated by the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> Of course being an asshole can't be fixed, so Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  How would you know the gun you are selling to a friend or neighbor is not a convicted felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if I know or not.....he knows.....and when he is caught with it he goes to jail.....there is no need to bother the normal, law abiding citizen......just to show what a fair guy I am...fine the seller if he isn't a gun trafficker...say, 1000 dollars, no misdemeanor, no felony...it is enough of a punishment to cause a bite, but not extreme the way the anti gun extremists want to punish him.....
> 
> A major trafficker, who knows he is actively breaking the law, by selling lots of guns to people he knows can't own them legally.....you arrest him and send him to jail.
> 
> Leave the law abiding alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying you're fine with people selling guns to Felons? Are you saying the gun seller shouldn't be held accountable?
Click to expand...


Yes, when we ask how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we are actually advocating selling guns to criminals.  How stupid are you?  The world may never know...


----------



## kaz

fanofthepower said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple stuff...outlaw guns, get rid of them...you don't have access to them because they don't exist...criminals don't have access to them because they don't exist...simple stuff.....
Click to expand...


Because of course .... criminals ... wouldn't buy illegal guns.  that would be against the law.  And of course criminals wouldn't violate the law.

So is a dictionary in the power budget?  You may want to look up the word "criminal."  Just saying...


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out a hunting magazine cover sometime. Those despicable cretins don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt for 'Trophies.' They enjoy killing & maiming innocent defenseless animals. They're deranged pussies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that camo isn't just an erotic gay sex pattern you wear on weekends,  but it helps hunters to not be seen by their prey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha, they're dumb loons hiding in trees waiting for an animal to walk by. Not  'Sporting' at all. They should call it 'Waiting' instead. Because that's all they're doing. Obviously an animal is gonna walk by at some point. It's the bleepin woods for God's sake!
> 
> And i especially despise the pussies who use attractants like salt blocks and sprays. I mean really? Attracting a poor hungry animal to you just so you can brutally murder it? Wow, pretty damn sick. Yeah, put the camo away and find another hobby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But someone putting a bolt through a cow's head so you can shred and cook it, that's not "murder," is it Holmes?  What if hunters eat their meat with fries and slaw like you do?  Would it be cool then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go work in a slaughterhouse. At least then i could give you some credibility. Because i don't buy your 'I hunt for food' B.S. Hunters hunt because they like killing and maiming. It's not for food or survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it's both.  Hunters do enjoy hunting, but they also enjoy eating their kill.  Do you have this same hang-up with fishing too?  You know, those poor little fish being tricked that they are going to be eating something only to find out it's a lure with hooks on it?
Click to expand...


I've never known a hunter who didn't hunt to eat what they kill.  When I became a vegetarian I stopped hunting even though I have no problem shooting an animal someone else would eat.  Just wasn't the same


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DC, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California have all tried "it". "It" has been ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion, or do you have evidence to support your comment?
Click to expand...

Vermont has no registration or licensing. Compare their homicide rate to any of 5 above.
Do you have evidence to refute?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because you dont know beans about humanly shooting an animal
> 
> doesnt mean everyone is like that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observe nature and God's beautiful animals. Don't blow their spines apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Yet we all do dress and drag, proving we hunt for food.


----------



## Ernie S.

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
Click to expand...

Impossible!


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Green.
> 
> So it's easier and less costly to buy a gun, buy ammo, buy a license, by tags if necessary, hike around for hours, shoot and maybe kill an animal, or follow it, if it is not put down immediately, carry it out, butcher it and either give away the meat or buy a freezer, than it is to go to the market, pick out a nice steak, fire up the grill or Big Green Egg, open a beer and relax.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'll have you know something else:  Fisherman have to buy a boat, pay insurance, pay for the gasoline to propel the boat, rent a place for storage in the winter, purchase a fishing license and equipment all to go fishing.
> 
> Do you suppose it's much cheaper for them to stop at the fish market to buy their fish instead of spending the tens of thousands of dollars that they do to catch fish themselves?
Click to expand...



his comparison was beyond stupid 

a lot of things happen and expense to get a pound of hamburger onto  the market  shelf


----------



## Ernie S.

fanofthepower said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
Click to expand...

A month ago, I stopped a 'roid raging man from attacking me with a knife in my place of business. You're dismissed.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
Click to expand...


*You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective.*

cant be too effective 

in new york a Cuomo aide got popped in the head this morning in gang cross fire 

1 dead, Cuomo aide shot in NYC parade violence


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they blew the cow you're eating's spine apart rather than just ramming a bolt in it's head then you would suddenly lose interest in that cheeseburger you're going to eat for lunch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, most hunters don't hunt for food or survival. They hunt because they're loons who enjoy murdering innocent defenseless animals. Just pick up a hunting magazine sometime. Check out all the camo-wearing ghouls posing with their 'Trophies.' Sick flucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually virtually all hunters hunt for food, Holmes.  You obviously don't know any hunters.  You also don't know any gay people, it's just a fantasy you have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie.  Virtually all hunters hunt to kill.  It's much too much work to hunt, to dress the kill and to lug it back to the vehicle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are just so full of shit your eyes are brown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Green.
> 
> So it's easier and less costly to buy a gun, buy ammo, buy a license, by tags if necessary, hike around for hours, shoot and maybe kill an animal, or follow it, if it is not put down immediately, carry it out, butcher it and either give away the meat or buy a freezer, than it is to go to the market, pick out a nice steak, fire up the grill or Big Green Egg, open a beer and relax.
> 
> Good to know.
Click to expand...

Up to your nose. The rest is toilet paper.
Not easier, but far more honest.
I eat meat. I kill meat. You eat meat and look down your nose at the people who kill it for you.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
Click to expand...

Because he *claims* to have sold guns....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
Click to expand...


In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
Click to expand...


Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.

In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
Click to expand...



it is another tax disguised as a fee placed on a right


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
Click to expand...


_When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
_
See:  Russell's Teapot

I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that was your plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  Prove you wrong?  Can't make up the stupid that you actually are.  And it doesn't even need to work, just "reduce" the guns in the hands of criminals.  One gun denied and you win.  In your mind.  That's classic.
> 
> OK, here is my proof it doesn't work.  The Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, our inner cities, drug lords.  Seriously, you think licensing is working?  When victims can't defend themselves and shooters run straight to gun free zones where you ensure their safety, at least until they get an acceptable body count?
> 
> There are millions of guns in this country and when you have 100 people in a sandy hook elementary school your plan is rather than allowing any of them to be armed, you're going to try to keep the millions of guns away from the nut bag.  And your plan, Prove me wrong!  How'd that work out for you?
> 
> I just had another thought.  Kids can buy all the pot they want, even when it's outright illegal.  How would you ever prevent criminals from getting any of the millions of guns in this country or the millions more outside the country when you also fight to keep the borders open and anyone who wants flowing freely into this country so they can vote for Democrats.
> 
> You're a deep shade of stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impossible!
Click to expand...


Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.

So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.

If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?


----------



## Wry Catcher

FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?

Then seek a solution. 

Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.

I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
Click to expand...


Give some examples of murders that would have prevented


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?
> 
> Then seek a solution.
> 
> Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.
> 
> I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.



What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impossible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.
> 
> So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.
> 
> If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?
Click to expand...


You "personally attack" people all the time.  My favorite whine is that one from people like you.  I don't whine that you criticize me


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give some examples of murders that would have prevented
Click to expand...


A very STUPID question!


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impossible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.
> 
> So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.
> 
> If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "personally attack" people all the time.  My favorite whine is that one from people like you.  I don't whine that you criticize me
Click to expand...


You are an asshole and a liar.  Why make that up without evidence?  I respond to many other posters, I save the very personal and very true attacks to mendacious assholes.

You don't like it, stop whining about it and debate the issue civilly and honestly.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?
> 
> Then seek a solution.
> 
> Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.
> 
> I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
Click to expand...


"maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:

*How do criminals procure guns?*


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
Click to expand...

Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.

Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*


They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
Click to expand...

Show evidence of its effectiveness.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> "See how easy it is to post a personal attack, two words.  That you need paragraphs shows just how fucking incompetent you are.
> 
> I've offered a hypothesis, the only way to prove it won't work is to try it. All the crap posted by the four Stooges haven't proved anything beyond their collective incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been tried here in Illinois....it is called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...I have one, you need to show it whenever you buy a gun or buy ammo.......every single time.....you have to show it to go on a shooting range as well....
> 
> 
> How is the FOID card working in Chicago...is it keeping the gun murder rate down there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impossible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.
> 
> So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.
> 
> If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?
Click to expand...

They buy the guns from other criminals or steal them. Would registration prevent that? HOW?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impossible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.
> 
> So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.
> 
> If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "personally attack" people all the time.  My favorite whine is that one from people like you.  I don't whine that you criticize me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an asshole and a liar.  Why make that up without evidence?  I respond to many other posters, I save the very personal and very true attacks to mendacious assholes.
> 
> You don't like it, stop whining about it and debate the issue civilly and honestly.
Click to expand...

I quote: "You are an asshole and a liar" (and mendacious)

You present no evidence your plan would be effective and you want to debate civilly and honestly.

You one funny dude! Drunk already?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give some examples of murders that would have prevented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A very STUPID question!
Click to expand...


Stupid?  What is wrong with you, why are you making proposals then for something you don't think will make any difference?  What is wrong with you?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So dumb.  Um, if Joe sells a gun to Jim does Jim need to show his card to Joe?  Is the sale reported to a state or local agency?  If not, your point is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impossible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.
> 
> So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.
> 
> If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "personally attack" people all the time.  My favorite whine is that one from people like you.  I don't whine that you criticize me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an asshole and a liar.  Why make that up without evidence?  I respond to many other posters, I save the very personal and very true attacks to mendacious assholes.
> 
> You don't like it, stop whining about it and debate the issue civilly and honestly.
Click to expand...


Sorry I made  you cry, guy.  You make personal attacks all the time, stop whining about it


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?
> 
> Then seek a solution.
> 
> Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.
> 
> I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
Click to expand...


Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
Click to expand...


So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?

No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?  


Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
Click to expand...


Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?
> 
> No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?*
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.*
> 
> *Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?*
Click to expand...


A recap ^^


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsessive fear is probably why you're seeing things.  You need to get help.  I'd start by letting them know that you're delusional and very creepy as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
Click to expand...


Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?
> 
> Then seek a solution.
> 
> Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.
> 
> I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
Click to expand...


Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?
> 
> No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?*
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.*
> 
> *Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A recap ^^
Click to expand...

Have you..... Probably not

Did you...... No


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
Click to expand...

Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for your meaningful and sound response.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep a record of the sale dipshit......and if you think that the guns the gangs are using in chicago are coming from Joe Citizen selling his hunting rifle you are as stupid as you post.
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, Ernie can learn.  He can personally attack a person in one word. Concise but not nearly a rebuttal.
> 
> So where do the guns in Chitown originate?  Are they bought legally, stolen, purchased in the parking lot at gun shows?  Tell me, I want to know.
> 
> If you don't, doesn't that cry out for registration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "personally attack" people all the time.  My favorite whine is that one from people like you.  I don't whine that you criticize me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an asshole and a liar.  Why make that up without evidence?  I respond to many other posters, I save the very personal and very true attacks to mendacious assholes.
> 
> You don't like it, stop whining about it and debate the issue civilly and honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I made  you cry, guy.  You make personal attacks all the time, stop whining about it
Click to expand...


Ernie, you make me feel like Burt.  Every time you post I roll my eyes (of course Burt couldn't) and want to bang my head on the desk.


----------



## Ernie S.

I know exactly what you mean. I'm frustrated because I am trying to argue with a box of rocks and you are frustrated because a box of rocks has a 10 point IQ advantage to you.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?
> 
> No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?
Click to expand...


Right, you split on things you buy and bang them on cement. That is supposed to prove what exactly?


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, you camo-wearing psychos are. You're just projecting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
Click to expand...


Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?
> 
> Then seek a solution.
> 
> Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.
> 
> I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
Click to expand...


Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.

Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you flaming faggots embarrass the rest of the gays?  Or is this just as standard you hold for gun owners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
Click to expand...


Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
Click to expand...


No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
> 
> 
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
Click to expand...


Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
Click to expand...


You've never met a gay person, you aren't aware they are people like the rest of us.  Ditto gun owners.  You are the proverbial guy who lives in his parent's basement and doesn't interact with the world


----------



## M14 Shooter

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
Click to expand...

Still showing off your mindless bigotry?
Good work.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never met a gay person, you aren't aware they are people like the rest of us.  Ditto gun owners.  You are the proverbial guy who lives in his parent's basement and doesn't interact with the world
Click to expand...


Most Gun Nuts i've met are hostile arrogant know-it-alls. They think because they have a 100 guns, that makes them tougher and smarter. But actually, it only shows them for who they really are... Insecure, paranoid, hateful, tiny-dicked loons. Sorry, but it is what it is.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still showing off your mindless bigotry?
> Good work.
Click to expand...


His view that gays are angels who's shit doesn't stink is just as bigoted


----------



## kaz

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never met a gay person, you aren't aware they are people like the rest of us.  Ditto gun owners.  You are the proverbial guy who lives in his parent's basement and doesn't interact with the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Gun Nuts i've met are hostile arrogant know-it-alls. They think because they have a 100 guns, that makes them tougher and smarter. But actually, it only shows them for who they really are... Insecure, paranoid, hateful, tiny-dicked loons. Sorry, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...


I've never met one of those, and I've known a lot of gun owners.  Of course the ones I know are real people, not imaginary


----------



## paulitician

M14 Shooter said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still showing off your mindless bigotry?
> Good work.
Click to expand...


You're against Bigotry now? When did that happen?


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> His view that gays are angels who's shit doesn't stink is just as bigoted


At this point, there's no reason to not have him, like all the other mindless bigots, on ignore.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still showing off your mindless bigotry?
> Good work.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His view that gays are angels who's shit doesn't stink is just as bigoted
Click to expand...


Never said that. Gay people are just people. I'm telling you my own personal experiences with both gay people and Gun Nuts. Gun Nuts tend to be paranoid hateful hostile folks. I find most gay people i meet to be pretty cool and non-hostile.


----------



## paulitician

kaz said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No harder than selling you a complete line of rouges
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, most gay people i've met are pretty cool. Wouldn't hurt a fly. You loony Gun Nuts on the other hand?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never met a gay person, you aren't aware they are people like the rest of us.  Ditto gun owners.  You are the proverbial guy who lives in his parent's basement and doesn't interact with the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Gun Nuts i've met are hostile arrogant know-it-alls. They think because they have a 100 guns, that makes them tougher and smarter. But actually, it only shows them for who they really are... Insecure, paranoid, hateful, tiny-dicked loons. Sorry, but it is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never met one of those, and I've known a lot of gun owners.  Of course the ones I know are real people, not imaginary
Click to expand...


Gun nuts are compensating. They compensate for having tiny penises and tiny brains. Hence all the know-it-all bluster and acquiring numerous firearms. They're hostile and have really big mouths. I grew tired of em. I got out of the gun selling business.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?
> 
> No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, you split on things you buy and bang them on cement. That is supposed to prove what exactly?
Click to expand...


Holy Cow!  Word Salad ^^^.  The dude must of lost his only marble.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
Click to expand...




> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.



Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*




We have told you over and over again, they steal them, they get someone who can pass all the laws buy it for them, which, right there ruins your license scheme, or they buy already stolen guns from other criminals.  Those are the most popular ways.


----------



## danielpalos

mustering well regulated militias of the People.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?
> 
> No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?
Click to expand...



In the parking lot of a gun show means the guy can't pass a Federal Background check since all vendors at a gun show must run a federal background check...right now....it is already law.  So....the guy who sells in the parking lot of the gun show knows that the guy he is selling to can't own the gun legally or he would be buying it from a vendor......

How does licensing stop that?  Since the guy selling the gun obviously thinks the risk of getting caught and losing his freedom, money and gun rights forever are worth the risk....

How does licensing the law abiding gun owner stop that sale?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
Click to expand...


How would a license or registration of firearms do that?  There would still be the same amount of guns on the street.  If somebody breaks into my home and steals my registered guns, the registration doesn't do squat, and that goes double if I were registered as a gun owner.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the author of the OP is unable to properly define the problem.  Once again:
> 
> *How do criminals procure guns?*
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them from criminals. ALREADY a crime, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So every gun produced has been purchased by a criminal from a criminal?  Or, only criminals have guns?  Or a person is not a criminal until he sells a gun without doing a background check?
> 
> No guns are ever purchased from a neighbor, in the parking lot of a gun show or in a local bar?
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Licensing would in effect register a weapon, would it not?
> I buy a license to purchase a pistol, government knows I own a pistol.
> 
> Sorry I suppose laws can be written to shield registration lists, but those laws can be modified and the list is there
> Hell, there are laws making it improper to conduct government business via non-government email accounts. There are rules against using the IRS to impede your political rivals. There are laws prohibiting the sale of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
> I should trust government after the last 6.5 years?
> So yes. I have a problem registering my weapons that are currently not on any government list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the posts on all of the gun threads.  Did you notice how many gun nuts brag about their collection and the new guns they have purchased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, you split on things you buy and bang them on cement. That is supposed to prove what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy Cow!  Word Salad ^^^.  The dude must of lost his only marble.
Click to expand...


Simple English is beyond your comprehension


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
Click to expand...


Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST, define the problem:  How do Criminals get Guns?
> 
> Then seek a solution.
> 
> Maybe the gun lovers above don't want a solution?  Some because in their wet dreams, they can one day be a hero and stop a bad guy with gun; and, some who simply profit from the sale of guns to any buyer with cash.
> 
> I doubt any of them today really believe they could take on a modern military, let alone ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
Click to expand...


Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.  

He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,


----------



## regent

Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
Click to expand...

Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.


More mindless nonsense.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
Click to expand...


What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire. 

Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.

If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
Click to expand...


LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
> 
> Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
> 
> If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
Click to expand...


Well, your "guess" is as good as a fact to me, so I'll go with that


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.



OK, so we shut down all domestic producers and criminals rely on the 310 million existing guns and the world full of guns with the open borders you support.  And the benefit of that is what?  You get a hard on that you shut down all the domestic gun manufacturers


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
Click to expand...



Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
Click to expand...


It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.

Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
Click to expand...



How does it limit guns....you still have not explained that...considering that if someone is a friend or a relative of a gang member and is knowingly a straw purchaser, they obviously don't care about the risk....do they?  And that is one of the most popular ways for criminals to get guns.  So the straw purchaser will get the license, buy the gun and report it lost or stolen as the gang member uses it........making your whole scheme silly.....

And here is a guy who was covicted of a gun crime...armed robbery, served less than 2 years on the paltry 3 year sentence....and now has killed 2 innocent people.....

Suspected Killer, a Convicted Felon on Probation, on the run in FL

*Chandler is a convicted felon who was released from prison in September 2011, after serving less than two years on a three-year sentence for attempted armed robbery with a weapon. *

According to court records, Chandler walked into a convenience store in Bradenton with a handgun, jumped over the counter and demanded money from the store clerk. The robbery was interrupted by the clerk’s co-worker and Chandler tried to run away, but the clerk held Chandler by his shirt and fought him until police arrived.

*He is currently still on probation and his last known residence is approximately three blocks from the convenience store at the center of Monday’s double murder.*



Do you think he would get a license for his gun?

How hard was it for this convicted felon to get  a gun.....do you really think a requirement for law abiding people to get a license would keep that gun out of his hands.....?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
Click to expand...


Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who shouldn't have them.

I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:

Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster

for example:

panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
Click to expand...




> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.




HOW DOES IT DO THIS?  You still have not explained how that works........

I have shown exactly how real gun control works....if you catch a guy committing a crime with a gun...you arrest him....see, I actually showed how that works...still waiting on you

If you catch a convicted felon just carrying a gun or with a gun in his home...you arrest him and lock him up.....see, I explained how that works....

And you lock them all up for 10 years minimum....and if they use a standard magazine in the weapon in the commission of a crime tack on another 10 years....

And that is how you control guns and keep people from using 30 round magazines for crimes....

Still waiting on your explanation....


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does it limit guns....you still have not explained that...considering that if someone is a friend or a relative of a gang member and is knowingly a straw purchaser, they obviously don't care about the risk....do they?  And that is one of the most popular ways for criminals to get guns.  So the straw purchaser will get the license, buy the gun and report it lost or stolen as the gang member uses it........making your whole scheme silly.....
> 
> And here is a guy who was covicted of a gun crime...armed robbery, served less than 2 years on the paltry 3 year sentence....and now has killed 2 innocent people.....
> 
> Suspected Killer, a Convicted Felon on Probation, on the run in FL
> 
> *Chandler is a convicted felon who was released from prison in September 2011, after serving less than two years on a three-year sentence for attempted armed robbery with a weapon. *
> 
> According to court records, Chandler walked into a convenience store in Bradenton with a handgun, jumped over the counter and demanded money from the store clerk. The robbery was interrupted by the clerk’s co-worker and Chandler tried to run away, but the clerk held Chandler by his shirt and fought him until police arrived.
> 
> *He is currently still on probation and his last known residence is approximately three blocks from the convenience store at the center of Monday’s double murder.*
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think he would get a license for his gun?
> 
> How hard was it for this convicted felon to get  a gun.....do you really think a requirement for law abiding people to get a license would keep that gun out of his hands.....?
Click to expand...


It wasn't hard, but if a license and registration of guns were the law the gun could be traced and others arrested and charged as accessories.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.




How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....

So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?

So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......

The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....

Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....

Or he just steals the gun.......

Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....

So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HOW DOES IT DO THIS?  You still have not explained how that works........
> 
> I have shown exactly how real gun control works....if you catch a guy committing a crime with a gun...you arrest him....see, I actually showed how that works...still waiting on you
> 
> If you catch a convicted felon just carrying a gun or with a gun in his home...you arrest him and lock him up.....see, I explained how that works....
> 
> And you lock them all up for 10 years minimum....and if they use a standard magazine in the weapon in the commission of a crime tack on another 10 years....
> 
> And that is how you control guns and keep people from using 30 round magazines for crimes....
> 
> Still waiting on your explanation....
Click to expand...


How did the felon get the gun?  The answer opens up new doors to explore.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does it limit guns....you still have not explained that...considering that if someone is a friend or a relative of a gang member and is knowingly a straw purchaser, they obviously don't care about the risk....do they?  And that is one of the most popular ways for criminals to get guns.  So the straw purchaser will get the license, buy the gun and report it lost or stolen as the gang member uses it........making your whole scheme silly.....
> 
> And here is a guy who was covicted of a gun crime...armed robbery, served less than 2 years on the paltry 3 year sentence....and now has killed 2 innocent people.....
> 
> Suspected Killer, a Convicted Felon on Probation, on the run in FL
> 
> *Chandler is a convicted felon who was released from prison in September 2011, after serving less than two years on a three-year sentence for attempted armed robbery with a weapon. *
> 
> According to court records, Chandler walked into a convenience store in Bradenton with a handgun, jumped over the counter and demanded money from the store clerk. The robbery was interrupted by the clerk’s co-worker and Chandler tried to run away, but the clerk held Chandler by his shirt and fought him until police arrived.
> 
> *He is currently still on probation and his last known residence is approximately three blocks from the convenience store at the center of Monday’s double murder.*
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think he would get a license for his gun?
> 
> How hard was it for this convicted felon to get  a gun.....do you really think a requirement for law abiding people to get a license would keep that gun out of his hands.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't hard, but if a license and registration of guns were the law the gun could be traced and others arrested and charged as accessories.
Click to expand...



No, they couldn't, because the first thing they do is report the gun stolen.  And I notice you said "Registration" when in an earlier post you said you didn't want to register guns......

See, we don't trust you guys....you just want a list of gun owners, legal gun owners.

You don't need a license to do what you just said.  You catch the criminal in the act of using the gun in a crime and arrest him...you give him some time off to name his source...no need for a license to know who the gun seller was........

Then the cops send in a cop to buy from the seller and when the cops says he can't pass a background check, and the seller still sells the gun to him....you can arrest him.....right now, with current laws, and you don't need a license for law abiding gun owners to do that...you can already do that with existing law.

So again....why do we need to license gun owners and how does it stop criminals and mass shooters from getting guns?

And how about this........the criminal just gets a fake license...right?  Then what?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HOW DOES IT DO THIS?  You still have not explained how that works........
> 
> I have shown exactly how real gun control works....if you catch a guy committing a crime with a gun...you arrest him....see, I actually showed how that works...still waiting on you
> 
> If you catch a convicted felon just carrying a gun or with a gun in his home...you arrest him and lock him up.....see, I explained how that works....
> 
> And you lock them all up for 10 years minimum....and if they use a standard magazine in the weapon in the commission of a crime tack on another 10 years....
> 
> And that is how you control guns and keep people from using 30 round magazines for crimes....
> 
> Still waiting on your explanation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the felon get the gun?  The answer opens up new doors to explore.
Click to expand...



No it doesn't Wry...we know how.....he got it illegally and without a background check.   And he wouldn't have been able to get a license or a carry permit, but he still would have gotten the gun.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
Click to expand...





> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,



Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
Click to expand...


Your scenarios are loop holes, that's true.  You are also making the case for a national gun registration.

I've said it's time to protect capitalism from the capitalists; now it seems time to protect the Second Amendment from people like you, M14 and Kaz.


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
Click to expand...

They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
Click to expand...

 


francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
Click to expand...

 Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry...did you actually want to respond to the post with an accurate answer?......I'll wait until you do....


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, i've actually met gay people in my life. And i've also met many gun-obsessed Gun Nuts. So i can give a more credible assessment than you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, your assessment of gun owners is "credible?"  Yeah, bitch, right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he *claims* to have sold guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, selling a gun to a gun-obsessed Gun Nut is real difficult. Guns & bullets are like to crack to em. I assure you, i sold many. However I regret it now somewhat. I realize now that many of em shouldn't have been anywhere near firearms. Most had an unhealthy obsession with firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns and bullets to gun nuts are like lipstick and mascara to you, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it hard to sell crack to a crack addict? Right. It isn't hard to sell a gun to a Gun Nut. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

I'm about to buy 2 Colt 1873's


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HOW DOES IT DO THIS?  You still have not explained how that works........
> 
> I have shown exactly how real gun control works....if you catch a guy committing a crime with a gun...you arrest him....see, I actually showed how that works...still waiting on you
> 
> If you catch a convicted felon just carrying a gun or with a gun in his home...you arrest him and lock him up.....see, I explained how that works....
> 
> And you lock them all up for 10 years minimum....and if they use a standard magazine in the weapon in the commission of a crime tack on another 10 years....
> 
> And that is how you control guns and keep people from using 30 round magazines for crimes....
> 
> Still waiting on your explanation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the felon get the gun?  The answer opens up new doors to explore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't Wry...we know how.....he got it illegally and without a background check.   And he wouldn't have been able to get a license or a carry permit, but he still would have gotten the gun.
Click to expand...


He acted illegally, the seller may not have acted illegally.  Do you understand why?


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
Click to expand...



Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?

And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....

How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....

So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HOW DOES IT DO THIS?  You still have not explained how that works........
> 
> I have shown exactly how real gun control works....if you catch a guy committing a crime with a gun...you arrest him....see, I actually showed how that works...still waiting on you
> 
> If you catch a convicted felon just carrying a gun or with a gun in his home...you arrest him and lock him up.....see, I explained how that works....
> 
> And you lock them all up for 10 years minimum....and if they use a standard magazine in the weapon in the commission of a crime tack on another 10 years....
> 
> And that is how you control guns and keep people from using 30 round magazines for crimes....
> 
> Still waiting on your explanation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the felon get the gun?  The answer opens up new doors to explore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't Wry...we know how.....he got it illegally and without a background check.   And he wouldn't have been able to get a license or a carry permit, but he still would have gotten the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He acted illegally, the seller may not have acted illegally.  Do you understand why?
Click to expand...



Wry....I know exactly the issue....you guys don't.  It shows in all of your posts.  Would licensing have stoped this guy, no.  Would a background check have stopped this guy?  No.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, _*in a fight he started*_ which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
Click to expand...

Not according to the jury.Had the jury thought Zimmerman started the fight, he could not have gotten off with self defence. I thought you were a former LEO?????

So we've established Rye Catcher is a fraud. Cool!


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, _*in a fight he started*_ which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the jury.Had the jury thought Zimmerman started the fight, he could not have gotten off with self defence. I thought you were a former LEO?????
> 
> So we've established Rye Catcher is a fraud. Cool!
Click to expand...



Of course he is a fraud, he's a lefty....


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.


Is Ford held responsible if you drive a Mustang when you're 3 sheets to the wind?
When they are, you'll have an argument. Til then, get back in the clown car with Franco.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
Click to expand...

Go away clown. You have never been to a gun show. You have likely never touched a gun, at least in a non felony situation. You are unqualified to comment here.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, _*in a fight he started*_ which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the jury.Had the jury thought Zimmerman started the fight, he could not have gotten off with self defence. I thought you were a former LEO?????
> 
> So we've established Rye Catcher is a fraud. Cool!
Click to expand...


As a LEO my confidence in the findings in a trial by jury is not exactly strong.  Only two people knew what happened that day, and one of them is dead.


----------



## Ernie S.

As a supposed LEO....


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
Click to expand...

 Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...
Click to expand...


If a person buying a firearm wants to kill people, what difference does it make if he has one gun or fifty?  Guns are not disposable you know.  You can reload a gun over and over again.


----------



## francoHFW

The guy buying fifty isn't using them, just selling them to the miscreants.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for conceding defeat.
> Your argument is proven ineffective and you go to the personal attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
> 
> Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
> 
> If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
Click to expand...


All content is protected under your insurance policy unless you bought the policy from your barber somewhere.  It doesn't matter if a thief steals your jewelry or your guns.  You report it to the police and the insurance company for compensation.  

It won't raise your premiums either because most insurance companies put you in an over generous plan.  My plan for content is over $100,000.  Why?  I don't know, that's just how they  make these plans.  And I have thousands of dollars in music equipment in my home, and it's all covered under one plan.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.



How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid ass.  Yes, moron, we want criminals to have guns.  You caught us.  What an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
Click to expand...


So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked. 

Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries. 

So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?  

You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.


----------



## francoHFW

Zimmerman is a gd idiot.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Zimmerman is a gd idiot.




But an alive GD idiot.  Without his legal firearm, that little hoodlum might have killed him.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Timing is everything.  

Just browsed through our local news sites and found this story in relation to how criminals get guns: 

*Video shows smash-and-grab robbery at Middleburg Heights gun shop*
POSTED 8:29 AM, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015, BY JESSICA BATES AND JENNIFER JORDAN, UPDATED AT 06:20PM, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS, Ohio-  Middleburg Heights police are investigating a smash-and-grab robbery that took place early this morning at B & T Shooting Supplies on Pearl Road.

Investigators tell us the suspects were using a stolen van when they smashed into the front of the building and took more than a dozen handguns around  3 a.m. Tuesday.

The owner tells FOX 8 it took the suspects less than a minute to complete the robbery.

Middleburgh Heights police believe the burglary was planned and skillfully carried out with the minivan stolen from Cleveland.

Chief John Maddox said, "The minivan was inside and still running upon the arrival of police officers. "

Maddox said once inside, three suspects headed to the gun counter, on the hunt for semi automatic weapons and revolvers.

The suspects remain on the loose at this time.

Video shows smash-and-grab robbery at Middleburg Heights gun shop


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman is a gd idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But an alive GD idiot.  Without his legal firearm, that little hoodlum might have killed him.
Click to expand...

 Yeah, how dare he get some munchies? lol


----------



## candycorn

I suppose the way you combat alcoholism is to make sure everyone drinks?  It's basically the remedy to gun violence; make sure everyone is armed to the teeth.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most states, CCW holders have to have a license.  I got mine.  I just don't know if it ever helped anybody for any reason.  It certainly didn't stop murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _When considering unfalsifiable claims, Bertrand Russell used an analogy of a celestial teapot. If a teapot was drifting in space between the Earth and Mars (making it unobservable), he claimed it would be unreasonable to expect belief of the teapot based on their inability to disprove the teapots existence. He compared the belief in God to the belief in a celestial teapot; in both cases it is not the responsibility of disbelievers to disprove its existence.
> _
> See:  Russell's Teapot
> 
> I've never claimed a license of any sort is a panacea, for gun violence or speeding on a public roadway.  It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is one idea with a specific goal, to mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay......you posted this, so  I ask again....how does the license mitigate the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would limit the source, to those who disobey the laws.  It is a bit more difficult too sell a long gun than a hand gun but easier than selling pot by the gram then any gun.
> 
> Next step.  A crook is arrested for a petty crime or a wobbler, in his or her possession is a hand gun.  The DA is pushing for 1-year county jail, three years probation, or, 20 days CJ, 345 suspended and one year probation if you tell us who sold you the gun, if we use your information and are able to arrest the person who sold you the gun.[/QUOTE
> 
> They do that now, Holmes.   Why isn't the problem solved then?
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> I suppose the way you combat alcoholism is to make sure everyone drinks?  It's basically the remedy to gun violence; make sure everyone is armed to the teeth.



That's stupid no one said that.  We said everyone should have the right to defend themselves.  Liberals think in such ridiculous extremes


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your scenarios are loop holes, that's true.  You are also making the case for a national gun registration.
> 
> I've said it's time to protect capitalism from the capitalists; now it seems time to protect the Second Amendment from people like you, M14 and Kaz.
Click to expand...




Yes, you're trying to "protect" the second amendment from those of us who think we have rights.  Classic


----------



## danielpalos

why not simply muster the militia and perform a visual check of their equipment?  gun lovers who refuse to register for posse duty can always be mustered for inspection.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who shouldn't have them.


Begging the question



Wry Catcher said:


> WI've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.



Strawman, it doesn't help at all.  No one said a solution has to be perfect.  Another ridiculous extreme statement by a black and white liberal




Wry Catcher said:


> WWhenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better



Glad you finally have a useful link for you


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> why not simply muster the militia and perform a visual check of their equipment?  gun lovers who refuse to register for posse duty can always be mustered for inspection.



You know, speaking of mustard, before I was vegetarian I liked hot dogs with just mustard.  Now I love veggie dogs, but I like ketchup better on those.  Though ketchup and mustard is good.  I prefer not only mustard though on veggie dogs


----------



## danielpalos

good for you; i am glad you are discovering new things in life.

i am just looking for a good hammock to spend some quality time on, every once in a while.


----------



## 2aguy

candycorn said:


> I suppose the way you combat alcoholism is to make sure everyone drinks?  It's basically the remedy to gun violence; make sure everyone is armed to the teeth.




No…but you would think so since as a lefty you don't engage your brain.  You treat guns the same as you treat every other problem….if someone misuses alcohol, you arrest them….if someone misuses a gun you arrest them.

Why is that dynamic so hard for you lefty, anti gun extremists to get….considering more people die because of alcohol than they do because of guns.


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not simply muster the militia and perform a visual check of their equipment?  gun lovers who refuse to register for posse duty can always be mustered for inspection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, speaking of mustard, before I was vegetarian I liked hot dogs with just mustard.  Now I love veggie dogs, but I like ketchup better on those.  Though ketchup and mustard is good.  I prefer not only mustard though on veggie dogs
Click to expand...



A "Veggie" dog is not a hot dog…what it is is not something you can actually quantify…but it is not a hot dog….God be with you…….and your…..tubular vegetable product


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why not simply muster the militia and perform a visual check of their equipment?  gun lovers who refuse to register for posse duty can always be mustered for inspection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, speaking of mustard, before I was vegetarian I liked hot dogs with just mustard.  Now I love veggie dogs, but I like ketchup better on those.  Though ketchup and mustard is good.  I prefer not only mustard though on veggie dogs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "Veggie" dog is not a hot dog…what it is is not something you can actually quantify…but it is not a hot dog….God be with you…….and your…..tubular vegetable product
Click to expand...


LOL, this is quit a position of principle for you!

Whatever you want to call them, they are good


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the way you combat alcoholism is to make sure everyone drinks?  It's basically the remedy to gun violence; make sure everyone is armed to the teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No…but you would think so since as a lefty you don't engage your brain.  You treat guns the same as you treat every other problem….if someone misuses alcohol, you arrest them….if someone misuses a gun you arrest them.
> 
> Why is that dynamic so hard for you lefty, anti gun extremists to get….considering more people die because of alcohol than they do because of guns.
Click to expand...


They are authoritarian leftists, they don't know what the word liberal actually means.  I'm a liberal, a classic liberal


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the way you combat alcoholism is to make sure everyone drinks?  It's basically the remedy to gun violence; make sure everyone is armed to the teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No…but you would think so since as a lefty you don't engage your brain.  You treat guns the same as you treat every other problem….if someone misuses alcohol, you arrest them….if someone misuses a gun you arrest them.
> 
> Why is that dynamic so hard for you lefty, anti gun extremists to get….considering more people die because of alcohol than they do because of guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are authoritarian leftists, they don't know what the word liberal actually means.  I'm a liberal, a classic liberal
Click to expand...



I too am a classical liberal.  And I actually eat real hot dogs too…….


----------



## regent

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

The


regent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
Click to expand...


That's just stupid.  Just be honest, you just want to shut them down, which isn't going to solve a single thing other than profiting overseas gun makers


----------



## danielpalos

insist gun loving bananas muster with gun loving hammocks for wellness of regulation purposes.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
Click to expand...

Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.


----------



## regent

[


Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
Click to expand...

So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating a fact [You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.] isn't a personal attack, it's an observation based on your mendacity and lack our comprehension.
> 
> Stop lying, and - if you can - think about my posts.  Misrepresentation is dishonest and is used by those incapable of writing a substantive rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
> 
> Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
> 
> If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All content is protected under your insurance policy unless you bought the policy from your barber somewhere.  It doesn't matter if a thief steals your jewelry or your guns.  You report it to the police and the insurance company for compensation.
> 
> It won't raise your premiums either because most insurance companies put you in an over generous plan.  My plan for content is over $100,000.  Why?  I don't know, that's just how they  make these plans.  And I have thousands of dollars in music equipment in my home, and it's all covered under one plan.
Click to expand...


Wrong.   Check it out with your agent, and then research it on line.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "maybe" is the word I used.  I do believe some gun owners (Zimmerman is a good example) seek out situations in their mind wherein they stop a bad guy with their gun.  I also believe possessing a gun is much like having a couple of drinks, it can cloud one's judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
Click to expand...


You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman is a gd idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But an alive GD idiot.  Without his legal firearm, that little hoodlum might have killed him.
Click to expand...


"hoodlum"?  Fact assumed without evidence.  Unless you consider his race necessary and sufficient evidence that he was a hoodlum, in which case I don't need to assume what that makes you.

Prove he was a hoodlum.  The fact that he smoked pot ain't sufficient to call any young person today a hoodlum.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
Click to expand...


And you claim to have some gun expertise and are honest.  Evidence that you are not:

"A personalized *gun*, or *smart gun*, is a concept firearm that is designed to reduce the misuse of firearms through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or a microchip implant."

Google


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> [
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?
Click to expand...

To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
> The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.
Click to expand...


You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.

Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started





Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
Click to expand...


It's in your own quote, liar.  Then you tell Ray to "read with out bias and with comprehension?"  Classic, can't make up the stupid that you actually are


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
Click to expand...

You didn't  answer my question.
You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
Why?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.


Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you say "crazy right wing" but you state every opinion as a fact and it's all one direction.  Own your crazy, Holmes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- Still background check system on all sales that WORKS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...
Click to expand...

None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> The guy buying fifty isn't using them, just selling them to the miscreants.


That's your bigoted presupposition.
Your bigoted presupposition isn't enough to limit the exercise of a right protected by the constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence?


A thinking person would infer nothing.
What do YOU infer?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in your own quote, liar.  Then you tell Ray to "read with out bias and with comprehension?"  Classic, can't make up the stupid that you actually are
Click to expand...


Well asshole, that comment was my inference which I explained in another post.  What part of F Off do you not understand.  Stalking me is damn creepy and suggestive of someone whose beliefs have been successfully challenged.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> A thinking person would infer nothing.
> What do YOU infer?
Click to expand...


That you're an obsessive and compulsive jerk.  Something someone of average intelligence would have been able to infer from other comments have posted.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.
Click to expand...


As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> A thinking person would infer nothing.
> What do YOU infer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you're an obsessive and compulsive jerk.
Click to expand...

Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty
So, again, what do YOU infer?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.
Click to expand...

We both know that when I ask you to cite those arguments, you will refuse to do so - because you know you cannot.
So..
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that there is a sound solution to mitigate gun violence in America
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that the right to arms _can _be constitutionally infringed.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
Click to expand...


He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
Click to expand...

Anti-gun loons see dead people as nothing but a means to an end - *The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents*, says WC.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
Click to expand...



Guns have all sorts of safety features and when a defect is found they are very good at getting recall notices out.  You should actually research the topic instead of relying on anti gun extremists to lie to you about the issue.

How many children died in 2013 because of gun accidents….69.  I wouldn't exactly call that an extreme problem…in a country of over 320 million people with over 320 million guns in private hands and over 12.8  million people carrying guns for self defense…and only 69 children have died in gun accidents….

I would say that means the products are very safe, and gun owners are incredibly responsible.

The NRA is incredibly responsible…again….try not to focus on anti gun propaganda and seek the truth and reality about the topic.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.


Not that you are capable of a meaningful response, but....
How do you make a gun safe from misuse, but still effective for its purpose?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
Click to expand...



Actually, Zimmerman lived there, Martin was staying with his father's girlfriend.  And you should have followed the trial…..Martin would be alive if he had just gone home….he doubled back to go after Zimmerman.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in your own quote, liar.  Then you tell Ray to "read with out bias and with comprehension?"  Classic, can't make up the stupid that you actually are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well asshole, that comment was my inference which I explained in another post.  What part of F Off do you not understand.  Stalking me is damn creepy and suggestive of someone whose beliefs have been successfully challenged.
Click to expand...


I see, so when you said Zimmerman started the fight, you explained how that meant you don't know Zimmerman started the fight.  That clears it up now, thanks


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> 
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
> The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.
> 
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
Click to expand...




> In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.



Not true.  When you catch someone breaking the law with a gun, lock them up.  Instead of 3 years for armed robbery and letting them out in under 2…..lock them up for 10 years, no probation or time for good behavior.  If they use a standard capacity magazine during the crime, throw in another 10 years.  If you catch a felon with a gun….another 10 years.

See if that doesn't change how many thugs carry and use guns.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watson, my opinions have never been proven to be 'crazy'.  Of course they are in one direction, the direction I think may mitigate gun violence by getting some guns our of the hands of some people who should have have them.
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea, I suppose my use of a word you don't recognize is the problem.  Whenever I do so, please look it up here:
> 
> Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Webster
> 
> for example:
> 
> panacea | something that will make everything about a situation better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've stated several times licensing is NOT a panacea,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that work?  Currently, the most common methods of getting guns for criminals is stealing them, and using people who can pass background checks to buy them.....
> 
> So...that is how they get them right now...right?  True or False?
> 
> So.....now you put a background check on all sales...even between 2 brothers and a dad and his son, and they all get background checks......
> 
> The gang member gets his family member or freind or pays someone with a clean record to go through the new and improved, jiffy, spiffy extra special background check.........and they pass because they still have a clean record....and the gang member gets the gun.....
> 
> Using the same method he used against the first type of background check....
> 
> Or he just steals the gun.......
> 
> Thereby negating the extra special background check that you want.....
> 
> So...how exactly do new and improved background checks do anything differently than the old background checks did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.
Click to expand...

 It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad your heroes the bought off Pubs block any such laws...oh you didn't hear about that- what a shocker...
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
> The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.
> 
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  When you catch someone breaking the law with a gun, lock them up.  Instead of 3 years for armed robbery and letting them out in under 2…..lock them up for 10 years, no probation or time for good behavior.  If they use a standard capacity magazine during the crime, throw in another 10 years.  If you catch a felon with a gun….another 10 years.
> 
> See if that doesn't change how many thugs carry and use guns.
Click to expand...


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...
Click to expand...

Like most other anti-gun loons, you cannot comprehend this simple truth:

- If a "solution" is not demonstrably effective at achieving a compelling state interest, it is impossible show that it is necessary to implement said 'solution'.
- If it is impossible to show the necessity of said 'solution, it is impossible to constitutionally justify the restrictions that 'solution' lays upon the rights of the law abiding.

That is:
None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns; that "It won't hurt" does not pass any level of constitutional scrutiny.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> 
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did gun makers put safety switches on guns if not as a safety feature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To keep people from shooting themselves, not others.
> The whole purpose for carrying a firearm is for protection. If I have to diddle with a trigger lock, retrieve it from a box or rely on some electronic sensor that recognizes my grip, I may die. Defeats the whole purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your right and can never be infringed.
> 
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  When you catch someone breaking the law with a gun, lock them up.  Instead of 3 years for armed robbery and letting them out in under 2…..lock them up for 10 years, no probation or time for good behavior.  If they use a standard capacity magazine during the crime, throw in another 10 years.  If you catch a felon with a gun….another 10 years.
> 
> See if that doesn't change how many thugs carry and use guns.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter if it changes them or not, they get locked up and stay there if it doesn't.  That is how you keep guns out of the hands of criminals, keep the criminals in jail.  Then let the rest of us decide how we want to defend ourselves in the meantime


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are capable of a meaningful response, but....
> How do you make a gun safe from misuse, but still effective for its purpose?
Click to expand...

Put  some of the safety burden on gun manufacturers, if their profits dipped, I'll bet they could come up with something concrete besides simple platitudes, and reasoning so simple they are insulting, but hey it works. People kill people, not guns.


----------



## francoHFW

80% agree we need a background check system without a hundred Pub loopholes, used to be over 90% before bought off Pub pundits brainwashed you chumps...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
Click to expand...


Another stupid remark.  

Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti-gun loons see dead people as nothing but a means to an end - *The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents*, says WC.
Click to expand...


Even dishonestly taken out of context the sentence makes sense. That it is too abstract for you is obvious and not unexpected.  In context it referred to gun lovers who would only see the argument for gun control if a loved one of theirs was slaughtered in a senseless rage.

Even that was lied about by CrusaderFrank who claimed the post was a wish I had to harm his family.

Take from this what you want, the message however is clear.  The gun lovers are liars and intentionally misconstrue every effort to discuss the issue of gun violence in America.  Which is why I refer to the bulk of them ass asshole, lairs and fools.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman is a gd idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But an alive GD idiot.  Without his legal firearm, that little hoodlum might have killed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hoodlum"?  Fact assumed without evidence.  Unless you consider his race necessary and sufficient evidence that he was a hoodlum, in which case I don't need to assume what that makes you.
> 
> Prove he was a hoodlum.  The fact that he smoked pot ain't sufficient to call any young person today a hoodlum.
Click to expand...


For one, he was staying at that residence because his mother could no longer handle him.  She kicked him out.  Two, he was suspended from school several times; once suspected of having stolen jewelry and criminal tools.  And while he was suspended, apparently he left the house to go to the store, something my parents surly wouldn't allow, especially while it was getting dark.  

But the real proof he was a hoodlum is that if not for Zimmerman shooting the bastard, and the cops pulled up, Martin would have been arrested for felonious assault.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, guns emanate evil, they could turn Mother Teresa into Charles Bronson, I feel you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
Click to expand...


*"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
Author unknown 

Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_

I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks again, loser. You've proposed licensing and registration a couple dozen times but never once proven that this would be effective. When challenged, you resort to ad hom attacks. You've got NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
> 
> Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
> 
> If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All content is protected under your insurance policy unless you bought the policy from your barber somewhere.  It doesn't matter if a thief steals your jewelry or your guns.  You report it to the police and the insurance company for compensation.
> 
> It won't raise your premiums either because most insurance companies put you in an over generous plan.  My plan for content is over $100,000.  Why?  I don't know, that's just how they  make these plans.  And I have thousands of dollars in music equipment in my home, and it's all covered under one plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Check it out with your agent, and then research it on line.
Click to expand...


Oh trust me, I did.  Why would guns be excluded from your content coverage?  I never heard of such a thing.  The only time you need a rider on anything is if your valuables exceed the normal amount of coverage.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman is a gd idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But an alive GD idiot.  Without his legal firearm, that little hoodlum might have killed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hoodlum"?  Fact assumed without evidence.  Unless you consider his race necessary and sufficient evidence that he was a hoodlum, in which case I don't need to assume what that makes you.
> 
> Prove he was a hoodlum.  The fact that he smoked pot ain't sufficient to call any young person today a hoodlum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one, he was staying at that residence because his mother could no longer handle him.  She kicked him out.  Two, he was suspended from school several times; once suspected of having stolen jewelry and criminal tools.  And while he was suspended, apparently he left the house to go to the store, something my parents surly wouldn't allow, especially while it was getting dark.
> 
> But the real proof he was a hoodlum is that if not for Zimmerman shooting the bastard, and the cops pulled up, Martin would have been arrested for felonious assault.
Click to expand...

 You've been listening to way too much Rush/Fox etc hate talk/ character assassination. Look at what Zim has been up to...-not good cop materiel.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
Click to expand...

 Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
Click to expand...


Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman. 

Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman is a gd idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But an alive GD idiot.  Without his legal firearm, that little hoodlum might have killed him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hoodlum"?  Fact assumed without evidence.  Unless you consider his race necessary and sufficient evidence that he was a hoodlum, in which case I don't need to assume what that makes you.
> 
> Prove he was a hoodlum.  The fact that he smoked pot ain't sufficient to call any young person today a hoodlum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one, he was staying at that residence because his mother could no longer handle him.  She kicked him out.  Two, he was suspended from school several times; once suspected of having stolen jewelry and criminal tools.  And while he was suspended, apparently he left the house to go to the store, something my parents surly wouldn't allow, especially while it was getting dark.
> 
> But the real proof he was a hoodlum is that if not for Zimmerman shooting the bastard, and the cops pulled up, Martin would have been arrested for felonious assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been listening to way too much Rush/Fox etc hate talk/ character assassination. Look at what Zim has been up to...-not good cop materiel.
Click to expand...


He hasn't been up to nothing.  He is a target for others now that he has a reputation.  But the claims of Zimmerman were false and so far, he's not in any trouble with the law.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark.
> 
> Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
Click to expand...


Oh, I know what you could do, Wry Coward. Have yourself a custom made T-Shirt which says "no guns allowed" and go see how well that does you in a crime ridden neighborhood.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.



Isn't this what you do when someone kicks your butt in a debate?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Bronson wasn't evil, his character in all those movies made him a hero, likely movies watched over and over by Zimmerman and others like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
Click to expand...


In fact I believe Zimmerman started the right.  But no one knows.  We do know Zimmerman has had further issues, in terms of guns and domestic violence.  Those made the news, I don't recall any news reports - of course I don't read the Wash. Examiner or watch Fox News - that Trayvon had a record of violence.

Are you familiar with the legal definition of stalking?  Or the use of the meme "Mean Mugging".  That's what I believe Zimmerman did and why IMO the struggle occurred.

You have no evidence that my opinion is not factual.  So don't pretend it is wrong and engage in NIGUUSOB (A game included in Psychiatrist Dr. Eric Berne's book Games People Play) and being captious.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the post wherein I proposed registration.   On another thread I posited guns needed to be insured in case of theft and registered with an insurance company, not a government agency, so that if stolen, they could be traced back to the source.  Laws can prevent the governemnt from accessing such a registration shielding the number and type of firearms from the government.
> 
> In fact I have no problem with registering my gun, why do you? Paranoid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
> 
> Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
> 
> If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All content is protected under your insurance policy unless you bought the policy from your barber somewhere.  It doesn't matter if a thief steals your jewelry or your guns.  You report it to the police and the insurance company for compensation.
> 
> It won't raise your premiums either because most insurance companies put you in an over generous plan.  My plan for content is over $100,000.  Why?  I don't know, that's just how they  make these plans.  And I have thousands of dollars in music equipment in my home, and it's all covered under one plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Check it out with your agent, and then research it on line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh trust me, I did.  Why would guns be excluded from your content coverage?  I never heard of such a thing.  The only time you need a rider on anything is if your valuables exceed the normal amount of coverage.
Click to expand...


I too looked into it.  This is what caused me to wonder and look into it: I rent a home to my son and his wife and they wanted to adopt a Doberman, a rescue.  MY agent told me that AAA (our home owner's policy) would not insure the home if they had a Pit Bull, Doberman or a few other breads of dog).


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Click to expand...

 Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are capable of a meaningful response, but....
> How do you make a gun safe from misuse, but still effective for its purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put  some of the safety burden on gun manufacturers, if their profits dipped, I'll bet they could come up with something concrete besides simple platitudes, and reasoning so simple they are insulting, but hey it works. People kill people, not guns.
Click to expand...

As I said:   You are not capable of a meaningful response to myquestion; all you can do is regurgitate the drivel your masters taught you to say.
They are -proud- of their useful idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> 80% agree we need a background check system without a hundred Pub loopholes, used to be over 90% before bought off Pub pundits brainwashed you chumps...


Why don't you understand than an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another stupid remark.
Click to expand...

One that you understand all to well is completely true.
Black lives matter to you only when they are taken by a white Christian male with a gun, as that's the only time you can use their deaths for political gain,


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti-gun loons see dead people as nothing but a means to an end - *The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents*, says WC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even dishonestly taken out of context the sentence makes sense.
Click to expand...

To someone that will happily use the blood of innocents to push his mindless and bigoted political agenda -- sure.
Normal people?  Not so much.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.
Click to expand...

We both know that when I ask you to cite those arguments, you will refuse to do so - because you know you cannot.
So..
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that there is a sound solution to mitigate gun violence in America
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that the right to arms _can _be constitutionally infringed.

Well?


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...
Click to expand...

Like most other anti-gun loons, you cannot comprehend this simple truth:

- If a "solution" is not demonstrably effective at achieving a compelling state interest, it is impossible show that it is necessary to implement said 'solution'.
- If it is impossible to show the necessity of said 'solution, it is impossible to constitutionally justify the restrictions that 'solution' lays upon the rights of the law abiding.

That is:
None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns; that "It won't hurt" does not pass any level of constitutional scrutiny.

No response?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman was "evil?"  Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
> 
> Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy.  But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> 
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact I believe Zimmerman started the right.  But no one knows.  We do know Zimmerman has had further issues, in terms of guns and domestic violence.  Those made the news, I don't recall any news reports - of course I don't read the Wash. Examiner or watch Fox News - that Trayvon had a record of violence.
> 
> Are you familiar with the legal definition of stalking?  Or the use of the meme "Mean Mugging".  That's what I believe Zimmerman did and why IMO the struggle occurred.
> 
> You have no evidence that my opinion is not factual.  So don't pretend it is wrong and engage in NIGUUSOB (A game included in Psychiatrist Dr. Eric Berne's book Games People Play and being captious.
Click to expand...


Actually I spent over a year in debate about this case when I was on Topix.com.  I did a lot of research into it and even kept my Zimmerman folder assuming the discussion would still come up from time to time. 

Zimmerman did not stalk.  Stalking means to haunt somebody day in and day out.  Zimmerman merely chased Martin for about five seconds or so.  There is no law against following anybody in this country.  Zimmerman ran after Martin to keep an eye on him until police arrived.  The only reason he ran after Martin is because Martin ran first and Zimmerman was trying to keep up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight?  The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life.  No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
> 
> Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
> 
> So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
> 
> You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
Click to expand...


Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured?  That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What type of insurance are you asking about?  Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
> 
> Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
> 
> If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All content is protected under your insurance policy unless you bought the policy from your barber somewhere.  It doesn't matter if a thief steals your jewelry or your guns.  You report it to the police and the insurance company for compensation.
> 
> It won't raise your premiums either because most insurance companies put you in an over generous plan.  My plan for content is over $100,000.  Why?  I don't know, that's just how they  make these plans.  And I have thousands of dollars in music equipment in my home, and it's all covered under one plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   Check it out with your agent, and then research it on line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh trust me, I did.  Why would guns be excluded from your content coverage?  I never heard of such a thing.  The only time you need a rider on anything is if your valuables exceed the normal amount of coverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I too looked into it.  This is what caused me to wonder and look into it: I rent a home to my son and his wife and they wanted to adopt a Doberman, a rescue.  MY agent told me that AAA (our home owner's policy) would not insure the home if they had a Pit Bull, Doberman or a few other breads of dog).
Click to expand...


Well that's a little different because if your house caught fire, or somebody inside was in need of rescue because they were out like a light, police and fire would be severely in harms way by having those animals in the house.  Once they bust down the door or break a window, a dog will do what dogs normally do, and that is protect their home, even if they are normally non-violent animals.  

But here in Ohio, we adopted the Castle Doctrine.  Our Castle Doctrine prohibits intruders (or their family) from suing the home owner that uses a firearm for protection.  Prior to the Castle Doctrine, an intruder could sue the homeowner for physical damages caused by an occupant using a firearm for protection.  It was a dumb law and I'm glad they got rid of it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark.
> 
> Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I know what you could do, Wry Coward. Have yourself a custom made T-Shirt which says "no guns allowed" and go see how well that does you in a crime ridden neighborhood.
Click to expand...


Better yet, strap on your six shooter and go into a "crime ridden neighborhood with a T shirt which is inscribed, "When Guns are Outlawed, Only Criminals Will Have Guns", on the back, and on the front, "Have Gun, Will Travel".

Oh, and mean mug everyone you pass by.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Click to expand...


Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have an idea (note singular use of the word).  In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists.  This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
> Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We both know that when I ask you to cite those arguments, you will refuse to do so - because you know you cannot.
> So..
> Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that there is a sound solution to mitigate gun violence in America
> Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that the right to arms _can _be constitutionally infringed.
> 
> Well?
Click to expand...


It's been done.  The Brady Bill, for example.  A License required to buy a fully automatic weapon.  A SAM is an Arm, can you legally buy one.  
do you believe you have the right to own one? 

Keeping guns out of the hands of those likely to misuse them, by thorough background checks and making it a felony to sell any firearm to any one not licensed.

I've posted reasons in detail, and only the four assholes keep asking this same questions, ad nausea.

My response to "Fuck Off".


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read without bias and with comprehension.  I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead.  We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there.  What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Click to expand...

 Seen them. zzzzzzz


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said." *
> Author unknown
> 
> Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said!  Never mind, I'll just paste it right here:  _"Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"_
> 
> I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight.  It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
Click to expand...


Self defense is justified in most states in this country.  Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "_*A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.*_" 

Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law.  It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it.  That's why he's a free man today.  You just don't like our laws.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is justified in most states in this country.  Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "_*A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.*_"
> 
> Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law.  It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it.  That's why he's a free man today.  You just don't like our laws.
Click to expand...

 THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> 80% agree we need a background check system without a hundred Pub loopholes, used to be over 90% before bought off Pub pundits brainwashed you chumps...




and how many think Elvis is still alive?   those people polled are not asked accurate questions so they are essentially lied to by the pollsters.  come back with people who were asked accurate poll questions, not people who are asked feel good questions without regard to what they actually do....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds.  That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at.  But he didn't.  He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
> 
> Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording.  He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
> 
> 
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is justified in most states in this country.  Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "_*A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.*_"
> 
> Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law.  It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it.  That's why he's a free man today.  You just don't like our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.
Click to expand...


No, it's not brand new.  It's been around for a couple of years.  In our state, the measure was signed into law by then Governor Ted Strickland who is a Democrat.  In Florida where the Zimmerman incident took place, that law has been in place for many years.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> My response to "Fuck Off"


Because you know you have no way to soundly argue your points.
Like all the other anti-gun loons.


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80% agree we need a background check system without a hundred Pub loopholes, used to be over 90% before bought off Pub pundits brainwashed you chumps...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how many think Elvis is still alive?   those people polled are not asked accurate questions so they are essentially lied to by the pollsters.  come back with people who were asked accurate poll questions, not people who are asked feel good questions without regard to what they actually do....
Click to expand...

 Not many. Total morons. About the % who think W was a good president or Obama a  really bad one.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is justified in most states in this country.  Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "_*A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.*_"
> 
> Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law.  It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it.  That's why he's a free man today.  You just don't like our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not brand new.  It's been around for a couple of years.  In our state, the measure was signed into law by then Governor Ted Strickland who is a Democrat.  In Florida where the Zimmerman incident took place, that law has been in place for many years.
Click to expand...

 It's crap. A great way for gun nuts to kill minorities.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved.  Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claim to have some gun expertise and are honest.  Evidence that you are not:
> 
> "A personalized *gun*, or *smart gun*, is a concept firearm that is designed to reduce the misuse of firearms through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or a microchip implant."
> 
> Google
Click to expand...

Proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or  microchip implants are all complicated electronic devices that can fail rendering the gun useless. Suppose my wife needs my gun. Will she have time to take it to a dealer to have it reprogrammed? Suppose I an wearing gloves? The microchip fails? I suppose my estate can sue......
A gun is no more dangerous than a hammer. They are not dangerous at all They can make a dangerous person more able to harm me, but really guy! If you are in fact, a former LEO, you should know that when you unholster a weapon, you are betting your life that it will go BANG.
My pistol has a safety. I do use it, but it is mechanical. I can take it apart and clean and lubricate it. I KNOW that it works perfectly. I have no such ability or knowledge with an electronic device.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is justified in most states in this country.  Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "_*A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.*_"
> 
> Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law.  It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it.  That's why he's a free man today.  You just don't like our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not brand new.  It's been around for a couple of years.  In our state, the measure was signed into law by then Governor Ted Strickland who is a Democrat.  In Florida where the Zimmerman incident took place, that law has been in place for many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's crap. A great way for gun nuts to kill minorities.
Click to expand...

If a man needs killing, I could care less what color he is.


----------



## francoHFW

That's what they all say lol...


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
> 
> And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of  a legal item has to go through a background check....
> 
> How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
> 
> So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...
Click to expand...

When you offer a viable solution that does not infringe upon the rights of law abiding people, we will listen. You and Rye Drinker have no such solution and call US stupid and nutjobs.
Get to it! Come up with a solution. I have no desire to see innocent people shot.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> That's what they all say lol...


Came damned close to killing a white boy about a month ago.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are capable of a meaningful response, but....
> How do you make a gun safe from misuse, but still effective for its purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put  some of the safety burden on gun manufacturers, if their profits dipped, I'll bet they could come up with something concrete besides simple platitudes, and reasoning so simple they are insulting, but hey it works. People kill people, not guns.
Click to expand...

Guns are SUPPOSED to be capeable of killing people. Making "safe" guns is like making lawn mowers that won't cut grass.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> That's what they all say lol...


You're a  very funny dude! If you have it stuck in your head that my being a gun toting Conservative makes me racist, I suggest a face to face meeting with my 2nd wife.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Better yet, strap on your six shooter and go into a "crime ridden neighborhood with a T shirt which is inscribed, "When Guns are Outlawed, Only Criminals Will Have Guns", on the back, and on the front, "Have Gun, Will Travel".
> 
> Oh, and mean mug everyone you pass by.



What does that even mean? I might as well save myself the trouble and get me an NRA t-shirt for the sole purpose of pissing you off.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barely had a mark on him?  Would you like to see the pictures?  I have them.  I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up.  Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self defense is justified in most states in this country.  Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "_*A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.*_"
> 
> Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law.  It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it.  That's why he's a free man today.  You just don't like our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not brand new.  It's been around for a couple of years.  In our state, the measure was signed into law by then Governor Ted Strickland who is a Democrat.  In Florida where the Zimmerman incident took place, that law has been in place for many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's crap. A great way for gun nuts to kill minorities.
Click to expand...


Well that's too bad you don't like our laws, but this is the wave of the future.  We've been waiting a long time for this day when government gives us the right to use deadly force for protection.  If you or any minorities want to stay alive, then the best thing you can do is learn the law and not attack people.  If you attack people, you can die because of it.  It's our turn now.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> How American of you.  You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claim to have some gun expertise and are honest.  Evidence that you are not:
> 
> "A personalized *gun*, or *smart gun*, is a concept firearm that is designed to reduce the misuse of firearms through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or a microchip implant."
> 
> Google
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or  microchip implants are all complicated electronic devices that can fail rendering the gun useless. Suppose my wife needs my gun. Will she have time to take it to a dealer to have it reprogrammed? Suppose I an wearing gloves? The microchip fails? I suppose my estate can sue......
> A gun is no more dangerous than a hammer. They are not dangerous at all They can make a dangerous person more able to harm me, but really guy! If you are in fact, a former LEO, you should know that when you unholster a weapon, you are betting your life that it will go BANG.
> My pistol has a safety. I do use it, but it is mechanical. I can take it apart and clean and lubricate it. I KNOW that it works perfectly. I have no such ability or knowledge with an electronic device.
Click to expand...


Do some guns jam and misfire?  How many times have you tested a smart gun?  Do you also fear green and renewable energy, electric cars and your shadow?


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, strap on your six shooter and go into a "crime ridden neighborhood with a T shirt which is inscribed, "When Guns are Outlawed, Only Criminals Will Have Guns", on the back, and on the front, "Have Gun, Will Travel".
> 
> Oh, and mean mug everyone you pass by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that even mean? I might as well save myself the trouble and get me an NRA t-shirt for the sole purpose of pissing you off.
Click to expand...


I'm not pissed off at gun lovers, I sorta pity anyone so paranoid and constantly afraid, so much so that need to have a gun with them at all times.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you are capable of a meaningful response, but....
> How do you make a gun safe from misuse, but still effective for its purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put  some of the safety burden on gun manufacturers, if their profits dipped, I'll bet they could come up with something concrete besides simple platitudes, and reasoning so simple they are insulting, but hey it works. People kill people, not guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are SUPPOSED to be capeable of killing people. Making "safe" guns is like making lawn mowers that won't cut grass.
Click to expand...


How's Burt doing these days Ernie?  Oh, do you recall if typewriters could float?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man.  IT didn't!  He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
> He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark.
> 
> Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
Click to expand...


Another stupid remark.

Listen asshole, next time some criminal wack job murders a bunch of kids in an elementary school then sticks the gun down his throat, make sure you bring that up for discussion


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark.
> 
> Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I know what you could do, Wry Coward. Have yourself a custom made T-Shirt which says "no guns allowed" and go see how well that does you in a crime ridden neighborhood.
Click to expand...


Yes, well stated, Templar.  Wry leaves neighborhoods defenseless against inner city violence, the areas where most murders happen.  They are ... wait for it ... gun free zones.  And the only ones with guns are the criminals.  Which ... is the point of my op ...


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated City and County militias do not leave those places, defenseless.


----------



## francoHFW

None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.


----------



## danielpalos

Posse comitatus under the common law includes a Posse Committee.



> _*Posse comitatus*_ is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.[2]--Source: Posse comitatus (common law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."--The Federalist Number Forty-One
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under our common law.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The
> Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.
> The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
> 
> 
> 
> Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.
> Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
> Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
> The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claim to have some gun expertise and are honest.  Evidence that you are not:
> 
> "A personalized *gun*, or *smart gun*, is a concept firearm that is designed to reduce the misuse of firearms through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or a microchip implant."
> 
> Google
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or  microchip implants are all complicated electronic devices that can fail rendering the gun useless. Suppose my wife needs my gun. Will she have time to take it to a dealer to have it reprogrammed? Suppose I an wearing gloves? The microchip fails? I suppose my estate can sue......
> A gun is no more dangerous than a hammer. They are not dangerous at all They can make a dangerous person more able to harm me, but really guy! If you are in fact, a former LEO, you should know that when you unholster a weapon, you are betting your life that it will go BANG.
> My pistol has a safety. I do use it, but it is mechanical. I can take it apart and clean and lubricate it. I KNOW that it works perfectly. I have no such ability or knowledge with an electronic device.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do some guns jam and misfire?  How many times have you tested a smart gun?  Do you also fear green and renewable energy, electric cars and your shadow?
Click to expand...

1. Some do. Mine never have because I can maintain them.
2. I have never tested a smart gun. I have no need to. I am smart enough to use a dumb gun responsibly.
3. No I don't fear green and renewable energy. I fear a government that would force it on me. I think electric cars will eventually be mature technology. I hope someone solves all the problems and makes boatloads of money.
No sir, I don't fear my shadow. Actually, I fear nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.


You said that before.
You refused to address the post that negates what you said.  
Twice.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.



It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?  

You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy. 

A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.  

That's liberal thinking for ya.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
Click to expand...

 Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh


----------



## francoHFW

Those are poor black inner cities duh. Discriminated against by racist GOPers and their racist policies.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> You said that before.
> You refused to address the post that negates what you said.
> Twice.
Click to expand...

 I didn't see that. Oh, you mean the usual bs about something that hasn't been tried yet and everyone BUT bought off Pubs and their hater dupes wants to try.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
Click to expand...


Evidence of that?  

I didn't think so.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
Click to expand...

I acquired most of my guns, 80%,  in a silly blue state. duh


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Those are poor black inner cities duh. Discriminated against by racist GOPers and their racist policies.


Have you talked to my ex-wife yet? You assume that Republicans are all racists because all you read is Liberal talking points.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of that?
> 
> I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

 For example:
*Bloomberg rips repeal of Va. gun law - NY Daily...*
www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-criticizes...
Mayor Bloomberg criticizes Virginia repeal of 20-year-old gun law 'Virginia is the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York'


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are poor black inner cities duh. Discriminated against by racist GOPers and their racist policies.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you talked to my ex-wife yet? You assume that Republicans are all racists because all you read is Liberal talking points.
Click to expand...

Not all- I usually say 50%. But most racists ARE GOP. Maybe the divorce MADE you a racist lol.


----------



## francoHFW

From link:
“Virginia is the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York, and one of the top suppliers of crime guns nationally,” Bloomberg said.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell signed the law repealing the gun limit on Tuesday, a day after the nation’s latest school shooting spree left three students dead in Ohio.
Bloomberg predicted the repeal will only lead to more bloodshed on the streets of cities throughout the Northeast. In the past two months, two NYPD cops have been shot with illegal guns from Virginia.
Officer Peter Figoski was slain Dec. 12 when he interrupted a Brooklyn robbery. Officer Thomas Richards survived a lower East Side shooting Monday night when a suspect’s bullet hit his metal gun clip — instead of his body.
“If they care about innocent people and police officers being shot, they should be strengthening laws — as we have done in New York — to keep guns away from criminals, not weakening them,” Bloomberg said. “This is only going to make matters worse.”
McDonnell, who’s been touted as a possible Republican vice presidential candidate, signed the bill after meeting with loved ones of those killed in the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting spree. As a Virginia delegate, McDonnell voted in 1993 to enact the commonwealth’s one-gun-per-month law.
Chris Goddard, who was shot four times in the massacre that left 32 dead, said the group tried to talk McDonnell into vetoing the legislation.
Goddard said the governor only “offered sympathy, not solutions.”
“Sympathy alone will not save lives,” said Goddard, an advocate with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
In a Daily News column last week, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly slammed legal loopholes in gun laws that fuel the so-called “iron pipeline” of guns flooding New York.
“In most cases, the guns were purchased outside of New York State — in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other points south — and then resold on the streets of New York at triple their retail value,” Kelly wrote.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak _American?  _Syntax isn't your forte.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark.
> 
> Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I know what you could do, Wry Coward. Have yourself a custom made T-Shirt which says "no guns allowed" and go see how well that does you in a crime ridden neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, well stated, Templar.  Wry leaves neighborhoods defenseless against inner city violence, the areas where most murders happen.  They are ... wait for it ... gun free zones.  And the only ones with guns are the criminals.  Which ... is the point of my op ...
Click to expand...


Another stupid remark, and all are of the same genre.  *Laws don't prevent crime!!!*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of that?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example:
> *Bloomberg rips repeal of Va. gun law - NY Daily...*
> www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-criticizes...
> Mayor Bloomberg criticizes Virginia repeal of 20-year-old gun law 'Virginia is the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York'
Click to expand...


It's an opinion piece, nothing more.  Besides the fact that since the new Commie Mayor of New York halted Stop and Frisk, that's what elevated gun murders and assaults in the city.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of this bs changes the fact that a good background check system with no Pub loopholes would cut nutjobs ability to buy guns and over time would be helpful against gangbangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of that?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example:
> *Bloomberg rips repeal of Va. gun law - NY Daily...*
> www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-criticizes...
> Mayor Bloomberg criticizes Virginia repeal of 20-year-old gun law 'Virginia is the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an opinion piece, nothing more.  Besides the fact that since the new Commie Mayor of New York halted Stop and Frisk, that's what elevated gun murders and assaults in the city.
Click to expand...

 None of your bs matters- we need a 100% background check system.
* Gun show loophole in Virginia; guns linked to New...*
abc7ny.com/archive/7841676

Cached
When a gun is used in a crime in New York, there's a good chance the weapon came from Virginia. That's because the state is the number one source for illegal guns ...


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of that?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example:
> *Bloomberg rips repeal of Va. gun law - NY Daily...*
> www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-criticizes...
> Mayor Bloomberg criticizes Virginia repeal of 20-year-old gun law 'Virginia is the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an opinion piece, nothing more.  Besides the fact that since the new Commie Mayor of New York halted Stop and Frisk, that's what elevated gun murders and assaults in the city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of your bs matters- we need a 100% background check system.
> * Gun show loophole in Virginia; guns linked to New...*
> abc7ny.com/archive/7841676
> 
> Cached
> When a gun is used in a crime in New York, there's a good chance the weapon came from Virginia. That's because the state is the number one source for illegal guns ...
Click to expand...

So???? Arrest people who bring guns illegally into New York. Put them in jail for 20 years. Leave me the fuck alone.


----------



## francoHFW

At the moment there's nothing illegal until they sell them . WE NEED THE 100% BACKGROUND CHECK LAW. This isn't rocket science lol.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> At the moment there's nothing illegal until they sell them . WE NEED THE 100% BACKGROUND CHECK LAW. This isn't rocket science lol.


No. You need to put criminals in jail and leave law abiding citizens alone.

You also might check into a brain transplant. I'm thinking if you could find a compatible mallard it would be a giant step up.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't  answer my question.
> You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit.  We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark.
> 
> Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I know what you could do, Wry Coward. Have yourself a custom made T-Shirt which says "no guns allowed" and go see how well that does you in a crime ridden neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, well stated, Templar.  Wry leaves neighborhoods defenseless against inner city violence, the areas where most murders happen.  They are ... wait for it ... gun free zones.  And the only ones with guns are the criminals.  Which ... is the point of my op ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another stupid remark, and all are of the same genre.  *Laws don't prevent crime!!!*
Click to expand...


No they don't, no more than a "gun free zone" sign stops some idiot with a semi-auto from putting holes in everyone in the building. He knows what he's doing is against the law, yet he does it anyway. Case in point. The law is pointless if there isn't anybody to enforce them.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment there's nothing illegal until they sell them . WE NEED THE 100% BACKGROUND CHECK LAW. This isn't rocket science lol.
> 
> 
> 
> No. You need to put criminals in jail and leave law abiding citizens alone.
> 
> You also might check into a brain transplant. I'm thinking if you could find a compatible mallard it would be a giant step up.
Click to expand...

 Brilliant. Read something.


----------



## Ernie S.

Like Progressive underground? I do from time to time, but it would appear that you read nothing else.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will?  Then why are some of the most gun violent places in lib cities and states where they have the most stringent gun laws in the country?
> 
> You libs are always thinking up solutions to problems that can't be solved.  A few weeks ago our police had their annual gun buy-back program.  The collected a ton of guns; many of them stolen I'm sure since the program comes with a don't question policy.
> 
> A week later a five year old was gunned down in the street by a drive-by shooter.
> 
> That's liberal thinking for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Because most of those guns were originally bought in silly red states, of course. duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence of that?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example:
> *Bloomberg rips repeal of Va. gun law - NY Daily...*
> www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-criticizes...
> Mayor Bloomberg criticizes Virginia repeal of 20-year-old gun law 'Virginia is the No. 1 out-of-state source of crime guns in New York'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an opinion piece, nothing more.  Besides the fact that since the new Commie Mayor of New York halted Stop and Frisk, that's what elevated gun murders and assaults in the city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of your bs matters- we need a 100% background check system.
> * Gun show loophole in Virginia; guns linked to New...*
> abc7ny.com/archive/7841676
> 
> Cached
> When a gun is used in a crime in New York, there's a good chance the weapon came from Virginia. That's because the state is the number one source for illegal guns ...
Click to expand...



So what's an illegal gun?  One that is stolen and off the books.  New York has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.  It shouldn't matter what any other state is doing.  By your logic, we shouldn't have any states that legally allow marijuana to be sold because that pot gets to other states where it's illegal.


----------



## francoHFW

Ridiculous bs. Of course it matters. See also Kansa going nuts over pot from Co- though I doubt it's very hard to buy in Kansas.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what's an illegal gun?  One that is stolen and off the books.


None of my guns are "on the books"; none are illegal.


> New York has some of the toughest gun laws in the country


And none of those laws keep criminals from getting guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> When a gun is used in a crime in New York, there's a good chance the weapon came from Virginia.


It is against federal law for someone in VA to sell a gun to someone who lives in NY.


----------



## danielpalos

Mustering a City or County posse may solve that simple problem.


----------



## francoHFW

Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.


Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ridiculous bs. Of course it matters. See also Kansa going nuts over pot from Co- though I doubt it's very hard to buy in Kansas.


It's not too hard to buy a gun in New York either, dolt.


----------



## francoHFW

And only getting easier, thanks to dupes like you of gun corps/NRA greedy idiots...


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> And only getting easier, thanks to dupes like you of gun corps/NRA greedy idiots...


Spoken like a true useful idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
Click to expand...


No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?

Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
Click to expand...

Translation:   You. again, understand you have no sound response to the point.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.

No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who post on this thread & call for efforts reduce the number of  guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.

I'd suggest that M14, Ernie and Kaz (among others) open their mind and watch Ken Burn's three part documentary on Prohibition.  While on first blush it appears to support their position, in total it supports the idea that the regulation of guns is necessary but hardly sufficient to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and others who should never own or possess one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.


Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
Click to expand...


LOL, keep up echoing yourself, there is not better way to convince those who read your posts that you have nothing else to offer, which off course you seem not to understand.

I edited my post, so I'll repeat it with minor corrections to syntax and for clarity:

Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed. So would the prohibition of guns in America.

No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who post on this thread & call for efforts reduce the number of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.

I'd suggest that M14, Ernie and Kaz (among others) open their mind and watch Ken Burn's three part documentary on Prohibition. While on first blush it appears to support their position, in total it supports the idea that the regulation of guns is necessary but hardly sufficient to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and others who should never own or possess one.

Now prove to me and others that further regulations of guns as I've suggested before, and as others have suggested, *cannot possibly reduce gun proliferation in the hands of criminals*, and , that it will infringe on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself...
Click to expand...

Translation:  You understand you have no effective response to what I said.
As usual.


----------



## danielpalos

Gun lovers on probation for domestic Tranquility and security of a free State issues, could be required to muster for posse duty to help lower costs for law enforcement and better ensure wellness of regulation for Persons considered specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.


----------



## my2¢

A well regulated militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

my2¢ said:


> A well regulated militia.


(snicker)
What about it?


----------



## my2¢

That's my plan.  We use a well regulated militia to keep guns from criminals.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> (snicker)
> What about it?
Click to expand...

It is what is necessary to the security of a free State; not, wasteful and expensive and non-enumerated, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  You understand you have no effective response to what I said.
> As usual.
Click to expand...


LOL, *you are incredibly stupid!*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  You understand you have no effective response to what I said.
> As usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, *you are incredibly stupid!*
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.
Now run along.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  You understand you have no effective response to what I said.
> As usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, *you are incredibly stupid!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.
> Now run along.
Click to expand...


Prove you are not incredibly stupid, and simply an asshole.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  You understand you have no effective response to what I said.
> As usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, *you are incredibly stupid!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.
> Now run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove you are not incredibly stupid, and simply an asshole.
Click to expand...

You hate the fact that you know you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, a fact you demonstrate every day.
This is your problem, not mine.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
Click to expand...



Yeah…locking up violent people saves lives.  We define criminal by watching and waiting for people to steal, rape, or murder other people…that is pretty much self defining right there.   The mass shooters are rare and  kill very few people…the common gang member has at least one arrest before they murder people.


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous bs. Of course it matters. See also Kansa going nuts over pot from Co- though I doubt it's very hard to buy in Kansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not too hard to buy a gun in New York either, dolt.
Click to expand...





> It's not too hard to buy a gun in New York either, dolt



Yes…..but try owning it legally…now that is almost impossible…...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
Click to expand...



Here is some truth about murderers…they aren't normal people…..

Public Health Pot Shots


----------



## M14 Shooter

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah…locking up violent people saves lives.
Click to expand...

Why lock up criminals when we can needlessly and ineffectually limit the rights of the law abiding?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself, there is not better way to convince those who read your posts that you have nothing else to offer, which off course you seem not to understand.
> 
> I edited my post, so I'll repeat it with minor corrections to syntax and for clarity:
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed. So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> 
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who post on this thread & call for efforts reduce the number of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> I'd suggest that M14, Ernie and Kaz (among others) open their mind and watch Ken Burn's three part documentary on Prohibition. While on first blush it appears to support their position, in total it supports the idea that the regulation of guns is necessary but hardly sufficient to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and others who should never own or possess one.
> 
> Now prove to me and others that further regulations of guns as I've suggested before, and as others have suggested, *cannot possibly reduce gun proliferation in the hands of criminals*, and , that it will infringe on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...


Actually we already are infringing on our Second Amendment rights because there are no exceptions to those who can have a gun.  We made law so that no felons can possess a firearm, but that doesn't make it constitutional. 

Registering legal firearms would do no good for the illegal firearms that most criminals use in crime.  That would be similar to registering bicycles and expecting it to reduce auto theft.


----------



## M14 Shooter

my2¢ said:


> That's my plan.  We use a well regulated militia to keep guns from criminals.


And how will this plan achieve that goal?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
Click to expand...


There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them. 

20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ridiculous bs. Of course it matters. See also Kansa going nuts over pot from Co- though I doubt it's very hard to buy in Kansas.



Nobody in New York is going to buy a legal gun.  It's too easy to trace.  Therefore most of those guns (if they are from VA) are likely illegal guns.


----------



## my2¢

M14 Shooter said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my plan.  We use a well regulated militia to keep guns from criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> And how will this plan achieve that goal?
Click to expand...

 
Not sure myself, but if it doesn't work we need to get rid of this amendment just like we gave the works to prohibition.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's my plan.  We use a well regulated militia to keep guns from criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> And how will this plan achieve that goal?
Click to expand...

By mustering gun lovers of the People to ensure they are appropriately equipped and reasonable proficient in the use of Arms.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
Click to expand...

 And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed.  So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who call for efforts to control the proliferation of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, you seek to further limit the constitutionally-protected rights of the law abiding with unnecessary and ineffectual restrictions that will do nothing to prevent gun-related crime -- restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, keep up echoing yourself, there is not better way to convince those who read your posts that you have nothing else to offer, which off course you seem not to understand.
> 
> I edited my post, so I'll repeat it with minor corrections to syntax and for clarity:
> 
> Prohibition of alcohol and Marijuana has failed. So would the prohibition of guns in America.
> 
> No one has suggested such a prohibition, not I nor any others who post on this thread & call for efforts reduce the number of guns in America in the hands of those who should not have them.
> 
> I'd suggest that M14, Ernie and Kaz (among others) open their mind and watch Ken Burn's three part documentary on Prohibition. While on first blush it appears to support their position, in total it supports the idea that the regulation of guns is necessary but hardly sufficient to keep them out of the hands of criminals, and others who should never own or possess one.
> 
> Now prove to me and others that further regulations of guns as I've suggested before, and as others have suggested, *cannot possibly reduce gun proliferation in the hands of criminals*, and , that it will infringe on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually we already are infringing on our Second Amendment rights because there are no exceptions to those who can have a gun.  We made law so that no felons can possess a firearm, but that doesn't make it constitutional.
> 
> Registering legal firearms would do no good for the illegal firearms that most criminals use in crime.  That would be similar to registering bicycles and expecting it to reduce auto theft.
Click to expand...

 So all gun owners are in a militia? Good to know. lol


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
Click to expand...


Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.

All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.

I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.


----------



## regent

There is no money and no power behind those that want to have some type of gun control. On the gun side is the NRA lobby, the gun manufacturers, and those citizens that love guns and their reading of the Second Amendment.  It is not the Court's usual methods to go again that kind of power.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
Click to expand...



We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.


----------



## Wry Catcher

regent said:


> There is no money and no power behind those that want to have some type of gun control. On the gun side is the NRA lobby, the gun manufacturers, and those citizens that love guns and their reading of the Second Amendment.  It is not the Court's usual methods to go again that kind of power.



The court in part, 5-4 is too common.  5-4 decisions are one very good argument to rebut the right wing meme that the Constitution is clearly written.

The genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, and why it is a living document.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
Click to expand...



Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.
Click to expand...


Stop calling everyone a moron.  BTW, background checks are not comprehensive.  Only a moron believes that to be true.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> There is no money and no power behind those that want to have some type of gun control. On the gun side is the NRA lobby, the gun manufacturers, and those citizens that love guns and their reading of the Second Amendment.  It is not the Court's usual methods to go again that kind of power.




Your kidding..right...here is a list of the forces of darkness trying to extinguish our Right....

NRA Releases List Of Celebrities Organizations That Support Gun Control

According to the list provided by the NRA, these people and companies have given money and/or support to gun control measures and/or organizations. If you believe in freedom, the Constitution and your right to own the firearms of your choice then please do not support these organizations, companies and/or celebrities.

*Here is the complete list:*

AARP
AFL-CIO
Ambulatory Pediatric Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Civil Liberties Union
American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing
American Medical Women`s Association
American Medical Student Association
American Medical Association
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
American Trauma Society
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities
American Medical Association
American Bar Association
American Counseling Association
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for World Health
American Ethical Union
American Nurses Association
American Association of Neurological Surgeons
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Firearms Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Jewish Committee
American Trauma Society
American Psychological Association
American Jewish Congress
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Black Mental Health Alliance
B`nai B`rith
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Children`s Defense Fund
Church of the Brethren
Coalition for Peace Action
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
College Democrats of America
Committee for the Study of Handgun Misuse & World Peace
Common Cause
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Consumer Federation of America
Council of the Great City Schools
Council of Chief State School Officers
Dehere Foundation
Disarm Educational Fund
Environmental Action Foundation
Episcopal Church-Washington Office
Florence and John Shumann Foundation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
General Federation of Women`s Clubs
George Gund Fun
Gray Panthers
H.M. Strong Foundation
Hadassah
Harris Foundation
Hechinger Foundation
Interfaith Neighbors
Int`l Ladies` Garment Workers` Union
Int`l Association of Educators for World Peace
Jewish Labor Committee
Joyce Foundation
Lauder Foundation
Lawrence Foundation
League of Women Voters of the United States*
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Manhattan Project II
Mennonite Central Committee-Washington Office
National Safe Kids Campaign
National Association of Police Organizations
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Black Nurses` Association
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Network for Youth
National Assembly of National Voluntary Health & Social Welfare Organizations
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Counties*
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement Officers
National Education Association
National Association of Elementary School Principals*
National Association of Public Hospitals
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Association of Children`s Hospitals and Related Institutions
National Association of School Psychologists
National Council of La Raza
National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth
National Commission for Economic Conversion & Disarmament
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Negro Women
National Association of Community Health Centers
National People`s Action
National Education Association*
National League of Cities
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Peace Foundation
National Urban League, Inc.
National Parent, Teachers Association*
National Urban Coalition
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Organization on Disability
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Ortenberg Foundation
Peace Action
People for the American Way
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Police Foundation
Project on Demilitarization and Democracy
Public Citizen
SaferWorld
Society of Critical Care Medicine
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Council of the Great City Schools
The Synergetic Society
20/20 Vision
U.S. Catholic Conference, Dept. of Social Development
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United States Catholic Conference
United Methodist Church, General Board & Church Society
United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society*
United States Conference of Mayors
War and Peace Foundation
Women Strike for Peace
Women`s National Democratic Club
Women`s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Women`s Int`l League for Peace and Freedom
World Spiritual Assembly, Inc.
YWCA of the U.S.A.

*The national organization only endorses federal legislation.

Krista Allen – Actress

Suzy Amis – Actress

Louis Anderson – Comedian

*Richard Dean Anderson* – Actor

Maya Angelou – Poet

David Arquette – Actor

Ed Asner – Actor

*Alec Baldwin* – Actor

Bob Barker – TV Personality

Carol Bayer Sager – Composer

*Drew Barrymore* – Actress

*Kevin Bacon* – Actor

Lauren Bacall – Actress*

Sarah Ban Breathnach – Writer

William Baldwin – Actor

Candice Bergen – Actress

Richard Belzer – Actor

Tony Bennett – Singer

Boys II Men – Pop Group

*Jon Bon Jovi* – Singer

Peter Bogdonovich – Director

Peter Bonerz – Actor

Albert Brooks – Actor

Beau Bridges – Actor

Benjamin Bratt – Actor

Bonnie Bruckheimer – Movie Producer

Christie Brinkley – Model

Dr. Joyce Brothers – Psychologist/Author

James Brolin – Actor

James Brooks – TV Producer

Mel Brooks – Actor/Director

Betty Buckley – Actress

Ellen Burstyn – Actress

Steve Buscemi – Actor

David Canary – Actor

Kate Capshaw – Actress

Kim Cattrall- Actress

Josh Charles – Actor

Robert Chartloff – Producer

Stockard Channing – Actress

Jill Clayburgh – Actress

*Terri Clark* – Singer

*George Clooney* – Actor

Jackie Cooper – Actor/Director*

Jennifer Connelly – Actress

Judy Collins – Singer

*Kevin Costner* – Actor

*Sean Connery* – Actor

Sheryl Crow – Singer

*Billy Crystal*– Actor

Julie Cypher – Director

Arlene Dahl – Actress

Clive Davis – Writer

Linda Dano – Actress

*Matt Damon* – Actor

Pam Dawber – Actress

Patrika Darbo – Actress

Stuart Damon – Actor

*Ellen Degeneres* – Actress

Gavin de Becker – Writer

Rebecca DeMornay – Actress

*Danny DeVito* – Actor

*Michael Douglas* – Actor

Phil Donahue – Talk Show Host

Richard Donner – Director

Fran Drescher – Actress

Richard Dreyfus – Actor

*David Duchovny* – Actor

Sandy Duncan – Actress

Christine Ebersole – Actress

Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds – Singer

Missy Elliott – Singer

Nora Ephron – Director

Gloria Estefan – Singer

Melissa Etheridge – Singer

Mia Farrow – Actress

*Mike Farrell* – Actor

Carrie Fisher – Actress

Sally Field – Actress

Doug Flutie – NFL player

Fannie Flagg – Actress

Jane Fonda – Actress

Jodie Foster – Actress

Rick Fox – NBA Player

Andy Garcia – Actor

Art Garfunkel – Singer

Geraldo – TV personality

*Richard Gere* – Actor

Kathie Lee Gifford – TV personality

Paul Glaser – TV director

Brad Gooch – Writer

Elliott Gould – Actor

Louis Gossett, Jr. – Actor

*Michael Gross* – Actor (aka Burt Gummer)

Nancy Lee Grahn – Actress

Bryant Gumbel – TV Personality

Deidra Hall – Actress

Ethan Hawke – Actor

Mariette Hartley – Actress

*Mark Harmon* – Actor (NCIS)

Anne Heche – Actress

Howard Hessman – Actor

Marilu Henner – Actress

*Dustin Hoffman* – Actor

Hal Holbrook – Actor*

Helen Hunt – Actress

Grace-Lynne Ingle – Actress

John Ingle – Actor

Francesca James – TV Producer

Norman Jewison – Director

Lainie Kazan – Actress

Richard Karn – Actor

Jeffrey Katzenberg – Producer

Barry Kemp – TV Producer

David E. Kelley – TV Producer

Diane Keaton – Actress

Margaret Kemp – Interior Designer

Chaka Khan – Singer

Coreta Scott King – Activist

Kevin Kline – Actor

Michael E. Knight – Actor

Jonathan Kozol – Writer

William Kovacs – Director

Lenny Kravits – Singer

Lisa Kudrow – Actress

Wally Kurth – Actor

Christine Lahti – Actress

k.d. lang – Singer

Ricki Lake – TV personality

Denis Leary – Actor

John Leguizamo – Actor

Norman Lear – TV Producer

*Spike Lee* – Director

Hal Linden – Actor

Lisa Linde – Actress

Tara Lipinski – Former Olympian

Keyshawn Johnson – NFL player

*Rob Lowe* – Actor

Amanda Marshall – Singer

Barry Manilow – Singer

Camryn Manheim – Actress

Howie Mandel – Actor

Kyle MacLachlan – Actor

Madonna – Singer

Marla Maples – Actress

Marsha Mason – Actress*

Mase – Singer

Penny Marshall – Director

Prema Mathai-Davis – YWCA Official

John McDaniel – Musician

John McEnroe – Athlete

Brian McKnight – Musician

Natalie Merchant – Singer

Bette Midler – Singer

Shane Minor – Musician

Mary Tyler Moore – Actress

Michael Moore – Film Maker

Norval Morris – Law Professor

*Mike Myers* – Actor

N Sync – Music group

Kathy Najimy – Actress

*Jack Nicholson* – Actor

Leonard Nimoy – Actor

Mike Nichols – Director

Stephen Nichols – Actor

Rosie O`Donnel l- Actress/Talk Show Host

Jennifer O Neill – Actress

Julia Ormond – Actress

Jane Pauley – TV Personality

*Sarah Jessica Parker* – Actress

Mandy Patinkin – Actor

Richard North Patterson – Writer

Rhea Perlman- Actress

Michelle Pfieffer – Actress

Sydney Pollack – Director

Aidan Quinn – Actor

Colin Quinn – Actor

*Dennis Quaid* – Actor

Elizabeth Bracco Quinn – Actress

Bonnie Raitt – Singer

Debbie Reynolds – Actress

Mary Lou Retton – Former Olympian

Paul Reiser – Actor

Peter Reckell – Actor

Rob Reiner – Actor/Director

Robert Redford – Actor/Director

Anne Rice – Writer

Cathy Rigby – Actress

Julia Roberts – Actress

Marc Rosen – TV Producer

Tim Robbins – Actor

Tim Roth – Actor

Renee Russo – Actress

Robin Ruzan – Wife of Mike Myers

Meg Ryan – Actress

Susan Sarandon – Actress

*Jerry Seinfeld* – Actor

Kyra Sedgwick – Actress

*Martin Sheen* – Actor

Russell Simmons – Record Producer

Neil Simon – Playwright*

Louise Sorel – Actress

Mira Sorvino – Actress

Rena Sofer – Actress

*Britney Spears* – Singer

*Bruce Springsteen* – Singer

Kevin Spirtas – Actor

Barbra Streisand – Singer

David Steinberg – Director

*Sylvester Stallone* – Actor

Harry Dean Stanton – Actor

Meryl Streep – Actress

*Patrick Stewart* – Actor

*Sharon Stone* – Actress

Sting – Singer

Trudie Styler – Actress

*Jonathan Taylor Thomas* – Actor

The Temptations – Pop Group

Vinny Testaverde – NFL player

Marlo Thomas – Actress*

Uma Thurman – Actress

Steve Tisch – Producer

Mike Torrez – Former Baseball player

*Shania Twain* – Singer

*Dick Van Dyke* – Actor

Eli Wallach – Actor*

Ruth Warrick – Actress

Harvey Weinstein – Producer

Jann Wenner – Publisher

*Sigourney Weaver* – Actress

Victor Webster – Actor

James Whitmore – Actor*

Andy Williams – Singer*

Kelli Williams – Actress

*Henry Winkler* – Actor

*Oprah Winfrey* – Entertainer

Rita Wilson – Actress

Vanessa Williams – Singer

Herman Wouk – Author

Joanne Woodward – Actress*

Peter Yarrow – Singer

Catherine Zeta-Jones – Actress

Ahmet Zappa -Actor

Diva Zappa -Actress

Dweezil Zappa – Musician

Gail Zappa –

Moon Zappa -Actress

* Membership on the Brady Campaign`s National Committee

Joel J. Alpert M.D. – Pediatrician

Robert Bernstein Ph.D – Pediatrician

Robert E. Brennan – Financier

Bishop Edmond Browning – Espiscopal Leader

James E. Carter – Former President

Marion Wright Edelman – Director, Childrens Defense Fund

Michael Eisner, Former Chairman and CEO The Walt Disney Company

Ahmet Ertegun – Music Producer

Amitai Etzioni – Teacher

Tom Freston – MTV President

Dr. Lorraine E. Hale – Social Worker

Della M. Hughes – Activist

Ed Koch – Former Politician

C. Everett Koop – Former Surgeon General

Rev. Wallace Ryan Kuroiwa – Clergyman

Davis S. Liederman – Ex. Dir. Child Welfare League

Paul Rabbi Menitaff – Clergyman

Abner Mikva – Former Judge

Richard Parsons – Pres. Time Warner

Steven Rockefeller – Financier

Ellen Y. Rosenberg – Activist

Rabbi David Saperstein – Clergyman

Herb Scannel – Pres. Nickelodeon

Vincent Schiraldi – Dir. Justice Policy Institute

Lyle Elmer Strom – Federal Judge

Joe Volk – Clergyman

Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie – Clergyman

Steve Benson – Cartoonist

Tony Auth – Cartoonist

Jim Borgman – Cartoonist

Jimmy Breslin – Columnist

Stuart Carlson – Cartoonist

Marie Cocco – Columnist

E.J. Dionne Jr. – Columnist

Bonnie Erbe – Columnist

Tom Fiedler – Columnist

Michael Gartner – Columnist

Mark Genrich – Columnist

James Glassman – Editor

Bob Herbert – Columnist

Bill Johnson – Columnist

Donald Kaul – Columnist

Mike Lane – Cartoonist

Leonard Larson – Columnist

Mike Luckovich – Cartoonist

Jimmy Margulies – Cartoonist

Deborah Mathis – Columnist

Colman McCarthy – Columnist

Jim Morin – Cartoonist

Tom Oliphant- Columnist

Mike Peters – Cartoonist

Robert Reno – Columnist

Frank Rich – Columnist

Cindy Richards – Columnist

Kevin Siers- Cartoonist

Ed Stein – Cartoonist

Tom Teepen – Editor

Tim Toles – Cartoonist

Garry Trudeau – Cartoonist

Cynthia Tucker – Columnist

Steve Twomey – Columnist

Steve Villano – Columnist

Adrienne Washington – Columnist

Don Wright – Cartoonist

A & M Records
Al Cafaro, Chrm. & CEO
595 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 826-0477
www.amrecords.com
Record Production, Entertainment

American Century Companies
James E. Stowers, CEO
4500 Main St., 4th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64111
(816) 531-5575
www.americancentury.com
Mutual Fund & Stock Investment Company on NYSE

American Multi Cinemas Entertainment, Inc.
Stanley H. Durwood, Co-Chairman, CEO Peter C. Brown, President, CFO
106 West 14th Street, #1700
Kansas City, MO 64141
(816) 221-4000
www.amctheaters.com
Movie Theater Company

Argosy Casino
H. Steven Norton, President, CEO
777 N.W. Argosy Parkway
Riverside, MO 64150
(816) 746-7711
www.argosycasinos.com/
Gambling Casino Company

Ben & Jerry`s Homemade, Inc.
Bennett R. Cohen Chrm. & CEO
Rte. 100, Box 240
Waterbury, VT 05676
(802) 244-5641
www.benjerry.com
Ice cream and frozen yogurt

BJC Health Systems
Fred L. Brown, President & CEO
4444 Forest Park Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63108
(314) 747-9322
www.bjc.org/
Healthcare Company

Blue Cross Blue Shield – Kansas City
John P. Mascotte, President
P.O. Box 419169
Kansas City, MO 64141
(816) 395-2222
Healthcare Company

Brooks Investments-Robert Brooks
Robert Brooks
45 Chesterfield Lakes Road
Chesterfield, MO 63005
Investment Company

Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.
Philip M. Hawley, Chrm. & CEO
444 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 620-0150
Retail clothing and accessories stores

Crown Central Petroleum Corp.
Henry A. Rosenberg, Jr.
One North Central Street Box 1168
Baltimore, MD 21203
(301) 539-7400
Refiners and marketers of petroleum products, convenience stores

Development Specialists – Chicago
70 W. Madison Street, #2300
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 263-4141

Earthgrains – St. Louis
8400 Maryland Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 259-7000
www.ironkids.com/Pages/Earthgrains.html
National Bread Company

General American – St. Louis
Richard A. Liddy, CEO
P.O. Box 396
St. Louis, MO 63166
(314) 843-8700
www.genam.com
Life Insurance

Hallmark Cards
Irvine O. Hockaday, President & CEO
P.O. Box 418307
Kansas City, MO 64141
(816) 274-5111
www.hallmark.com
Greeting Card Company

Health Midwest
2316 East Meyer Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64132
(816) 751-3000
www.healthmidwest.org
National Healthcare Company

ICN Biomedicals
Adam Jerney, Chrm. & CEO
3300 Hyland Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 545-0113
www.icnbiomed.com
Pharmaceutical products

James B. Nutter Co. – Kansas City
James B. Nutter
4153 Broadway
Kansas City, MO 64111
(816) 531-2345
Investment Banker

Kansas City Chiefs
One Arrowhead Drive
Kansas City, MO 64129
(816) 924-9300
www.kcchiefs.com
Pro Football Team

Kansas City Royals
David Glass, CEO
P.O. Box 419969
Kansas City, MO 64141
(816) 921-8000
www.kcroyals.com
Pro Baseball Team

Kenneth Cole
152 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
(800) 536-2653
www.kennethcole.com
Clothing retailer

Lamar Advertising Company
Lamar Outdoor Advertising
5551 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 2-A
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
P. O. Box 66338
Baton Rouge, LA 70896
(225) 926-1000
Fax (225) 926-1005
www.lamar.com

Levi Strauss & Co.
Robert D. Haas, Chairman
Philip Marineau, CEO
Peter A. Jacobi, President and COO
1155 Battery St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 501-6000
FAX (415) 501-3939
www.levistrauss.com
Clothing

Mallinckrodt, Inc. – St. Louis
C. Ray Holman, President & CEO
675 McDonnell Blvd, Box 5840
St. Louis, MO 63134
(314) 654-2000
www.mallinckrodt.com
Clothing Starch Company

Michael Douglas Foundation
3550 Wilshire
Los Angele, CA 90010

MNC Financial, Inc.
Ten Light Street Box 987
Baltimore, MD 21203
(301) 244-5000
Banking, financial services

Sara Lee Corporation
Sara Lee Foundation
Three First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60602-4260
Phone: 312-726-2600
www.saralee.com
Fax: 312-726-3712

Silver Dollar City
Peter Herschend
One Corporate Drive
Branson, MO 65616
800 475-9370
www.silverdollarcity.com
Amusement Parks

Site Oil Company – St. Louis
Alvin J. Siteman, President
50 S. Bemiston
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 725-4321
Oil Company

Southland Corporation
Masatoshi Ito, Chrm.
2711 North Haskell Avenue
Dallas, TX 75221
www.7-eleven.com
Convenience stores

Southwestern Bell Telephone- St. Louis
One Bell Center
St. Louis, MO 63101
(314) 235-9800
www.swbell.com
Telecommunications Firm

Sport & Health, Inc.
Don Konz, CEO
1800 Old Meadow Rd.
McLean, Virginia 22102
(703) 556-6556
www.sportandhealth.com
Health clubs and fitness centers

Sprint Corp PAC
Westwood, KS 66205
913 624-3000
www.sprint.com
Telecommunicaitons Firm

SSM Health System – St. Louis
477 N. Lindbergh
St. Louis, MO 63141
(314) 994-7800
Healthcare Company

St. Louis Rams
One Rams Way
Earth City, MO 63045
(314) 982-7267
www.stlouisrams.com
Pro Football Team

St. Louis University
Rev. Lawrence Biondi, President
221 N. Grand Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63103
(314) 977-2222
www.slu.edu
Private Catholic University

Stoneyfield Farms Yogurt
Mr. Gary Hirshberg, CEO
10 Burton Drive
Londonderry, NH 03053
(603) 437-7594
Yogurt

Sverdrup Corp.
Richard E. Beumer,
Chairman & CEO
13723 Riverport Drive
Maryland Heights, MO 63043
(314) 436-7600
www.sverdrup.com
Engineering Firm

Time Warner Inc.
Gerald M. Levin, Chrm. & CEO
75 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10019
(212) 484-8000
www.pathfinder.com/corp/
Publishing, film and music recordings

TMP Worldwide/Monster.Com
Andrew McKelvey, CEO
1633 Broadway, 33rd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-977-4200
Fax: 212-956-2142
www.tmpw.com
www.monster.com
online employment service

Unity Health – St. Louis
1650 Des Peres Road #301
St. Louis, MO 63131
(314) 909-3300
www.smhs.com/unityheath.html
Healthcare Company

Working Assets
Peter Barnes, Founder
701 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 788-0777
www.workingassets.com

Capital Cities/ABC
Television Network
77 W. 66th Street
New York, NY 10023-6298
(212) 456-7777

Bell Atlantic-D.C.
2055 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 392-9900

Blue Chip Stamps
15801 S. Eastern Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90040
(213) 720-4600

The Christian Publishing Society
The Christian Science Monitor
One Norway Street
Boston, MA 02115
(508) 586-6200

Columbia Broadcasting Service
CBS Television Network
51 W. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
(212) 975-4321

Corporation For Public Broadcasting/ PBS Television
1320 Braddock Place
Alexandria, VA 22314-1698
(703) 739-5000
(703) 739-0775 – Fax

Cox Newspapers
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Credibank Towers, Suite 400
2800 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33137
(305) 576-7678

Gannett News Service
USA Today
1000 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22229
(703) 276-5806

Johnson Publishing Company, Inc.
Ebony Magazine
820 S. Michigan avenue
Chicago, IL 60605-2190
(312) 322-9250

Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Detroit Free-Press
321 W. LaFayette Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48231
(313) 222-6400

Miami Herald
One Herald Plaza
Miami, FL 33132-1683
(305) 350-2111

Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, California 90053
(213) 237-4511
(213) 237-7679 – Fax

McCall`s Magazine
110 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10017-5603
(212) 463-1000

Motorcycle Cruiser Magazine
Emap PLC
6420 Wilshire Blvd., Floor 17
Los Angeles, California 90048
(323) 782-2000

National Broadcasting Company
NBC Television Network
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
(212) 664-4444

Newsweek, Inc.
Newsweek Magazine
444 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6999
(212) 350-4000

Rolling Stone Magazine
Jann Wenner, Chrm. & CEO
745 5th, Avenue
New York, NY 10151
(212) 758-3800

The New York Times Corporation
The New York Times
229 W. 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212) 556-1234

Time Magazine
Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10020
(212) 522-1212

Times-Mirror Corporation
The Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053
(213) 237-3000

The Baltimore Sun
501 N. Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21278
(301) 332-6300

The Tribune Company
Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 227-3000

Washington Post
1150 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20071
(202) 334-6000


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop calling everyone a moron.  BTW, background checks are not comprehensive.  Only a moron believes that to be true.
Click to expand...



Background checks are not comprehensive, they work on actual criminals...MORON.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop calling everyone a moron.  BTW, background checks are not comprehensive.  Only a moron believes that to be true.
Click to expand...



I only call morons, moron.......


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.
Click to expand...

 Because of red state idiocy, MORON.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of red state idiocy, MORON.
Click to expand...



No, MORON, because criminals don't care about laws, so they break them.   And all of your laws focus on law abiding citizens, not criminals....you guys could care less about actual criminals using guns, you just care that a normal person wants to own one, and you know you can stick it to them by passing laws.....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
Click to expand...




What are you talking about?  You are the one making up BS about how background checks would stop gun violence, but can't explain how.  Sounds to me like you're the one who is programmed by your libby/ Commie leaders.  I (we all here) have explained how such a law won't change a thing.  One more time? 

Such a law would only apply to legally purchased firearms which most criminals don't use.  They use illegal firearms that can only be traced to the last person who legally owned them and had them stolen.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
Click to expand...


In your state, it's hell to even buy a gun and much more restrictive than what's being proposed here by you people.  So how's that working out?  Not so good I take it.  Yet you want to take some of those failed policies and spread them across the country?  No thank you.


----------



## francoHFW

Thickest substance known to science: hater dupe skull.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
Click to expand...


Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.

From the CA Penal Code:

12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
(1) Section 187 (murder).
(2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
(3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
(4) Section 211 (robbery).
(5) Section 215 (carjacking).
(6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
felony).
(7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
peace officer or firefighter).
(8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
(9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
(10) Section 286 (sodomy).
(11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
(12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
(13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
(14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
(15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
(16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
(17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life.
(18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
other than an assault.
(b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
life.

Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws

What say you now?


----------



## regent

The gun lobby defense seems to be, if  people break laws why have laws. I don't think most expect laws to eliminate gun deaths just lower the number of needless deaths. It may also be true, however, that the more gun laws on the books, the more gun sales might drop.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> The gun lobby defense seems to be, if  people break laws why have laws. I don't think most expect laws to eliminate gun deaths just lower the number of needless deaths. It may also be true, however, that the more gun laws on the books, the more gun sales might drop.



No...you have no clue...what we know works...you lock up criminals if they break the law.....no need for licensing, registering or targeting law abiding gun owners.   no...the more gun laws on the books the more laws criminals ignore.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...



Yeah...we have the same thing in Illinois.....2 guys were given 3 years for gun crimes...they were redirected to a boot camp and were out in 18 months.....then they shot up a play ground full of people....we are not keeping gun criminals locked up.  the Chicago police superintendent just pointed this out...1500 arrests for gun crimes and 3/4 of them were out in a day..........


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...



Here you go dipstick......from a gun grabber no less....

McCarthy Says Too Many Arrested For Illegal Gun Possession Are "Immediately Back Out On The Street”

McCarthy says of the 1,500 people arrested in the first half of the year for illegal gun possession, three out of four are “immediately back out on the street.”

“I think we’re doing a pretty good job when we’re getting this many guns,” McCarthy says. “The question is, what happens afterwards. So prosecutors, judges, elected officials have to be held accountable at the same level that I’m accountable for.”


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...



Here is another story from another state...

Suspected Killer, a Convicted Felon on Probation, on the run in FL



Authorities in Palmetto, Florida say 25-year old Devin Chandler walked into the Snappy Kwick Store on 17th Street West early Monday morning and gunned down store employees and brothers Khasem Yosuef, 23, and Faares Yousef, 17. Surveillance video shows Chandler entering the store, picking up a few items, and proceeding to the counter where he shot the young men execution style before fleeing the scene. He is still on the run and may be driving a blue 2000-2005 blue Chevrolet Impala.



The brothers are not usual employees of the store, but were filling in as a favor to their father who owns the establishment so that store employees could have the Labor Day holiday off. ‘I feel really bad. I saw them yesterday in Tampa. I just can’t believe that,’ the brothers’ cousin Omar Suleiman told WFLA in a highly emotional interview on Monday. ‘They don’t work here usually, but they worked here today.’

“The individual went into the store.  The two employees who were killed were at the front counter.  He just point-blank walked up and shot them, just shot them in the head,” says Chief Scott Tyler who also confirmed they were able to identify Devin Chandler as the shooter from surveillance video in the store.

*Chandler is a convicted felon who was released from prison in September 2011, after serving less than two years on a three-year sentence for attempted armed robbery with a weapon. *

According to court records, Chandler walked into a convenience store in Bradenton with a handgun, jumped over the counter and demanded money from the store clerk. The robbery was interrupted by the clerk’s co-worker and Chandler tried to run away, but the clerk held Chandler by his shirt and fought him until police arrived.

He is currently still on probation and his last known residence is approximately three blocks from the convenience store at the center of Monday’s double murder.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...



And here you go dipshit.....

Explaining "Robbery" Laws in California | CA Penal Code 211  pc

*Penalties*

California robbery under Penal Code 211 PC is always a felony in California law. The exact penalty depends on whether you commit robbery of the first degree or of the second degree.3

A California robbery is considered robbery of the first degree if it is a


robbery of any driver or passenger on a bus, taxi, streetcar, subway, cable car, etc.,
robbery that takes place in an inhabited structure, or
robbery of any person who has just used an ATM and is still in the vicinity of the ATM.4
First-degree robbery leads to a California state prison sentence of between three (3) and nine (9) years.5

And second-degree robbery is punishable by two (2), three (3) or five (5) years in state prison.6


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...



And here you go dipshit......

California P.C. 29800: Felon in Possession of a Firearm - Law offices of John D. Rogers

*What is the Punishment for Felon in Possession of a Firearm?*
The consequences of a felony conviction under felon in possession of a firearm are:


*16 months, 2, or 3 years in California state prison*
Formal Probation or Parole Supervision
Up to $1,000 in Fines
Permanent Firearm Ban
Immigration Consequences
Temporary Loss of Search & Seizure Rights


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...



And of course, dipshit....you didn't think to add stupid leftwing governors who release violent criminals with life sentences back into the community.....

As more inmates are released from prison, more parolees return

When Brown took office in 2011, more than *33,000 parole-eligible inmates with life sentences* were in California's overcrowded prisons,* kept there by governors loath to release murderers.* Some had been held twice as long as their sentences required.

*Citing a 2008 California Supreme Court ruling that prevented parole commissioners from considering the brutality of the inmate's crime,* Brown's office is now allowing the release of two or three lifers each day. In response to other legal challenges, the state Board of Parole Hearings also is scouring hearing transcripts to find more candidates for early review.

So now the people of California can't even trust life sentences to keep violent monsters behind bars......

*With the dramatic rise in parole, The Times also found a disturbing increase in revocations. Since 2011, at least 50 inmates with life sentences, including 33 paroled under Brown, returned to prison or jail, accused of drug use, domestic violence, theft, even attempted murder.*


So who are they releasing, genius.....

*"We're talking about people with track records of the most serious and violent crime … and we're saying, 'Good luck out there, do well,'" said Christine Ward, executive director of Crime Victims Action Alliance.*


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
Click to expand...




Okay Genius.......you posted this.......

(b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally*
*and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.

*
Sooooo...tell me genius....how did that work for this guy......

Oakland convicted killer released from jail after serving less than 3 years

A convicted drug dealer was released from jail today after serving less than three years for killing a man at a KFC restaurant in August 2012.

Anthony Paige and co-defendant Terry Austin, both 29, were charged with murder and attempted murder for the killing of 25-year-old Demariae Clay of Oakland and wounding a woman while the victims were waiting for food in the drive-through lane of the restaurant, located at 73rd Avenue and International Boulevard, at about 6:15 p.m. on Aug. 16, 2012.

The victims were in the woman’s Lexus and Clay was in the driver’s seat, according to Oakland police. Clay died of multiple gunshot wounds.

*But prosecutors recently entered into an agreement that allowed Paige and Austin to plead no contest to the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter and receive three-yearsentences.*

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Allan Hymer formally sentenced Paige today to a three-year term but he was given credit for the time he’s been in custody since his arrest on Sept. 4, 2012, and released.

Austin’s lawyer, William DuBois, said Austin would be released from custody when he’s sentenced on Jan. 8, 2016. Delaying Austin’s sentencing date allows him to serve his time at the Glenn Dyer Jail in Oakland rather than at state prison, DuBois said.



Soooooo....any more dumb information that you want to post to show how wrong you are......?

I mean...with all of your "law enforcement" experience that you said means you know what you are talking about....?  Please explain what happened to this guy in that story......

So as I have been posting over and over again.......violent, gun criminals are not being locked up for long periods of time.........moron.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
> 
> All of which were passed by a dominant Democratic Legislature and signed by Republican Governors.  At the same time Mental Health, Probation and Parole have had budget reductions, the former two resulted in the State raiding county revenue, and Parole greatly limited in terms of time under supervision, do to the liberals push for determinant sentencing.
> 
> I'd explain in detail, but facts always upset conservatives.  Really now, cognitive dissonance isn't fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...gun criminals are out quickly, and serve little time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you make stuff up?  You're not smart enough to fool anyone, and those of us who spent three + decades working in the criminal justice system see through you.
> 
> From the CA Penal Code:
> 
> 12022.53. (a) This section applies to the following felonies:
> (1) Section 187 (murder).
> (2) Section 203 or 205 (mayhem).
> (3) Section 207, 209, or 209.5 (kidnapping).
> (4) Section 211 (robbery).
> (5) Section 215 (carjacking).
> (6) Section 220 (assault with intent to commit a specified
> felony).
> (7) Subdivision (d) of Section 245 (assault with a firearm on a
> peace officer or firefighter).
> (8) Section 261 or 262 (rape).
> (9) Section 264.1 (rape or sexual penetration in concert).
> (10) Section 286 (sodomy).
> (11) Section 288 or 288.5 (lewd act on a child).
> (12) Section 288a (oral copulation).
> (13) Section 289 (sexual penetration).
> (14) Section 4500 (assault by a life prisoner).
> (15) Section 4501 (assault by a prisoner).
> (16) Section 4503 (holding a hostage by a prisoner).
> (17) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
> prison for life.
> (18) Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision
> other than an assault.
> (b) *Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), personally uses a firearm, shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 10 years*. The firearm need not be operable or loaded for this enhancement to apply.
> (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a),* personally
> and intentionally discharges a firearm, shall be punished by an
> additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 20 years.*
> (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who, in
> the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a), Section
> 246, or subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100, personally and
> intentionally discharges a firearm and proximately causes great
> bodily injury, as defined in Section 12022.7, or death, to any person
> other than an accomplice, shall be punished by an additional and
> consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to
> life.
> 
> Title 2. Sentence Enhancements - California Penal Code Section 12022.53 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
> 
> What say you now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And here you go dipshit.....
> 
> Explaining "Robbery" Laws in California | CA Penal Code 211  pc
> 
> *Penalties*
> 
> California robbery under Penal Code 211 PC is always a felony in California law. The exact penalty depends on whether you commit robbery of the first degree or of the second degree.3
> 
> A California robbery is considered robbery of the first degree if it is a
> 
> 
> robbery of any driver or passenger on a bus, taxi, streetcar, subway, cable car, etc.,
> robbery that takes place in an inhabited structure, or
> robbery of any person who has just used an ATM and is still in the vicinity of the ATM.4
> First-degree robbery leads to a California state prison sentence of between three (3) and nine (9) years.5
> 
> And second-degree robbery is punishable by two (2), three (3) or five (5) years in state prison.6
Click to expand...


Having a gun adds time, read my post moron.  Ten, twenty or 25 to life for having a gun, using a gun or causing great bodily injury.  These are added on to the time you've posted above.

There are other factors to consider for sentencing, under the rules of the court.  The trier of fact can find factors in mitigation or aggrevation, for the former the lower term, for the later, the higher term and with no findings the base term.


----------



## danielpalos

The social Power has already been delegated to the County.


----------



## M14 Shooter

my2¢ said:


> Not sure myself, but if it doesn't work we need to get rid of this amendment just like we gave the works to prohibition.


Here you go::
Don't like the 2nd Amendment?  Get off your ass and repeal it.  Really. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support....
Click to expand...

Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your platitude is thoughtless and biased.  Use a gun, go to prison, and three strikes have filled our prisons and are the primary reason the St. Prison system in California busted the budget.
Click to expand...

Why do you oppose stiff sentences for those who commit crimes with guns?
Rather than punish criminals that use guns, why do you prefer to further, limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, needles and unconstitutional restrictions for which there is no sound argument?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> There is no money and no power behind those that want to have some type of gun control.


There is also no sound argument, which counts more than money and power.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no money and no power behind those that want to have some type of gun control. On the gun side is the NRA lobby, the gun manufacturers, and those citizens that love guns and their reading of the Second Amendment.  It is not the Court's usual methods to go again that kind of power.
> 
> 
> 
> The court in part, 5-4 is too common.  5-4 decisions are one very good argument to rebut the right wing meme that the Constitution is clearly written.
> The genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, and why it is a living document.
Click to expand...

Another issue that you refuse to meaningfully address:
DC v Heller was a 5-4 split decision... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support, and bought off Pubs have blocked it DUH. If we tried your idea here, they would brainwash you to be against THAT. You're a functional MORON. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have a federal background check...MORON.....and criminals get around it easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop calling everyone a moron.  BTW, background checks are not comprehensive.  Only a moron believes that to be true.
Click to expand...

background checks are performed for every gun sold thru a dealer.   Every one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> The gun lobby defense seems to be, if  people break laws why have laws.


This is either a lie or abject ignorance.
The argument is that laws intended to prevent gun crime do no such thing, and therefore serve only to add needless, unsoundl and unconstitutional limits on the rights of the law abiding.
If you paid any attention whatsoever and any degree of intellectual honesty, you;d recognize this.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no money and no power behind those that want to have some type of gun control. On the gun side is the NRA lobby, the gun manufacturers, and those citizens that love guns and their reading of the Second Amendment.  It is not the Court's usual methods to go again that kind of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court in part, 5-4 is too common.  5-4 decisions are one very good argument to rebut the right wing meme that the Constitution is clearly written.
> 
> The genius of the COTUS is its ambiguity, and why it is a living document.
Click to expand...


----------



## TemplarKormac

And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:



Wry Catcher said:


> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.



Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind. 

You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pass background checks without loopholes, brainwashed functional morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
> I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?
Click to expand...

 He only had 60 votes for 2 weeks, Pub dupe. Don't you hate it when your heroes make you look like a fool all the time?


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brainwashed fool believes this will have any effect on criminals getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
> I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He only had 60 votes for 2 weeks,
Click to expand...

2 years.
Excuses excuses.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No solution exists, except to put every criminal in prisons?  And who defines "Criminal"?  A man who steals formula for his infant son?  And which mass murderer of recent time has had a criminal record?
> 
> Another stupid post by M14.  The evidence is mounting that he is thoughtless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
> I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He only had 60 votes for 2 weeks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years.
> Excuses excuses.
Click to expand...

2 years, over 200 Pub filibusters, dingbat dupe. Earth to Pub dupe...


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are solutions to every problem, but liberals don't have the guts to implement them.
> 
> 20 years in prison for having a firearm you're not supposed to be in possession of.  Arm more good citizens and promote good people carrying their guns.  Make laws much more lenient for those who are legally armed.  Give them the backing of our government should they need to use a firearm for protection.
> 
> 
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
> I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He only had 60 votes for 2 weeks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years.
> Excuses excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years, over 200 Pub filibusters, dingbat dupe. Earth to Pub dupe...
Click to expand...

Excuses, excuses.


----------



## francoHFW

TemplarKormac said:


> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
Click to expand...

 Every day there's another at least- "Guns Everywhere" is NRA/Gun Corps/corrupt GOP idiocy. Background checks without loopholes is hardly coming for your guns, brainwashed functional morons...


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Background checks without loopholes...


There are no loopholes in the current background check system.
To believe otherwise is to lie to yourself.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks without loopholes...
> 
> 
> 
> There are no loopholes in the current background check system.
> To believe otherwise is to lie to yourself.
Click to expand...

 Gunshows in Red states duhhh. You just prefer to live on another planet lol. Pathetic.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks without loopholes...
> 
> 
> 
> There are no loopholes in the current background check system.
> To believe otherwise is to lie to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gunshows in Red states duhhh.
Click to expand...

As I said:  You lie to yourself.
Federal law does not allow an exception for guns sold at gun shows; there are no loopholes in the current background check system.


----------



## francoHFW

Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:
As of August 2013, 17 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., require background checks at gun shows.[102][5] Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private sales of firearms at gun shows.[103][104][105]


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:


There is no such thing,
Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
Why do you insist on lying to yourself?


----------



## francoHFW

Sure, FoxRushwhatever bot. lol. Time for more tinfoil.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you blame Dems for not passing strong anti-gun laws? LOL. The background check law has THE most support....
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
> I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He only had 60 votes for 2 weeks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years.
> Excuses excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years, over 200 Pub filibusters, dingbat dupe. Earth to Pub dupe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuses, excuses.
Click to expand...


An explanation is not an excuse!  Of course calling it so is a lie, lies are not unexpected from M14.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing,
> Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
> Why do you insist on lying to yourself?
Click to expand...


The Parking lot at gun shows, in bars and back alleys are loopholes as well as a black market.  Once again M14 lies, this time with a half-truth, thus a lie of omission!  BTW, black market sales and purchases are criminal acts.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Sure, FoxRushwhatever bot. lol. Time for more tinfoil.


^^^
This is what happens when you choose to take a position contrary to the truth .


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama was in office for 2 years with a Democrat-controlled Congress.   Why didn't he pass it then?
> I mean other than he didn't have enough Dem votes to do it...?
> 
> 
> 
> He only had 60 votes for 2 weeks,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years.
> Excuses excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 years, over 200 Pub filibusters, dingbat dupe. Earth to Pub dupe...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuses, excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An explanation is not an excuse!  Of course calling it so is a lie, lies are not unexpected from M14.
Click to expand...

More excuses.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing,
> Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
> Why do you insist on lying to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Parking lot at gun shows, in bars and back alleys is a loopholes as well as a black market.
Click to expand...

Federal law applies everywhere; regardless where you are, you are subject tot the same federal rules and regulations regarding background checks - there are no exceptions in the law based on location, and thus no loopholes.
You know this - you simply choose to lie about it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
Click to expand...


Straw Man Alert.  That you're too biased (or not bright enough) [or both] to understand my post is not unexpected. 

There are no atheists in fox holes is a rhetorical device, and my comment, ""The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." is not disgusting, it is a rhetorical device used to get people to think.  That you and M14 won't (or can't) understand that is pitiful, or dishonest.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing,
> Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
> Why do you insist on lying to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Parking lot at gun shows, in bars and back alleys is a loopholes as well as a black market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law applies everywhere; regardless where you are, you are subject tot the same federal rules and regulations regarding background checks - there are no exceptions in the law based on location, and thus no loopholes.
> You know this - you simply choose to lie about it.
Click to expand...



Do you agree with the judge putting the Kentucky Clerk in Jail?  Or do you believe in a higher law?  

Do you Agree with the 5-4 decision that the PPACA (Obamacares) is Constiutional? 

Do you agree with every bit of Scalia's opinion which prevailed in Heller v. DC?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing,
> Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
> Why do you insist on lying to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Parking lot at gun shows, in bars and back alleys is a loopholes as well as a black market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law applies everywhere; regardless where you are, you are subject tot the same federal rules and regulations regarding background checks - there are no exceptions in the law based on location, and thus no loopholes.
> You know this - you simply choose to lie about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you agree with the judge putting the Kentucky Clerk in Jail?  Or do you believe in a higher law?
> Do you Agree with the 5-4 decision that the PPACA (Obamacares) is Constiutional?
> Do you agree with every bit of Scalia's opinion which prevailed in Heller v. DC?
Click to expand...

Translation: You understand you have no sound response to my post.


----------



## francoHFW

There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki- Gun show loopholes duh:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing,
> Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
> Why do you insist on lying to yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Parking lot at gun shows, in bars and back alleys is a loopholes as well as a black market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law applies everywhere; regardless where you are, you are subject tot the same federal rules and regulations regarding background checks - there are no exceptions in the law based on location, and thus no loopholes.
> You know this - you simply choose to lie about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you agree with the judge putting the Kentucky Clerk in Jail?  Or do you believe in a higher law?
> Do you Agree with the 5-4 decision that the PPACA (Obamacares) is Constiutional?
> Do you agree with every bit of Scalia's opinion which prevailed in Heller v. DC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: You understand you have no sound response to my post.
Click to expand...


lol, true, I can't create sound on my keyboard and transmit it in a reply. Of course Soundness is a term in logic, something I suspect you need to understand, sense you use it inappropriately. 

As a good liberal let me help:

Truth, Validity, and Soundness


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing,
> Federal law applies at gun shows just like it does where else - there is no "loophole" in the law for gun shows.
> Why do you insist on lying to yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> The Parking lot at gun shows, in bars and back alleys is a loopholes as well as a black market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law applies everywhere; regardless where you are, you are subject tot the same federal rules and regulations regarding background checks - there are no exceptions in the law based on location, and thus no loopholes.
> You know this - you simply choose to lie about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you agree with the judge putting the Kentucky Clerk in Jail?  Or do you believe in a higher law?
> Do you Agree with the 5-4 decision that the PPACA (Obamacares) is Constiutional?
> Do you agree with every bit of Scalia's opinion which prevailed in Heller v. DC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: You understand you have no sound response to my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Of course Soundness is a term in logic...
Click to expand...

Yes.   And that's the response you understand you have no capacity to create,


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.


Says the guy who refuses to understand that the federal laws on background checks apply everywhere, and so there is no "loophole".


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who refuses to understand that the federal laws on background checks apply everywhere, and so there is no "loophole".
Click to expand...


I think it's time for you to grow up, your only rebuttal is mindful of a child, a dull child at that, who repeats the same refrain over and over and expects to be taken seriously.


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> The gun lobby defense seems to be, if  people break laws why have laws. I don't think most expect laws to eliminate gun deaths just lower the number of needless deaths. It may also be true, however, that the more gun laws on the books, the more gun sales might drop.



Needless deaths?  Dude, your plan is working.  Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, even a military installation, the Washington Navy Yard?  Your plan worked, no one shot back, the carnage was maximized.  You got to exploit it.

Everyone does follow the law.  Well, except the shooter.   So really the point is, if ONLY the criminals don't follow the law, then why have the laws?

For you of course the answer is there are fewer people who die and more heroes who save people which of course is counter to your government is your mother pig you want to suckle, but I mean for normal people who don't want people to die unable to defend themselves


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who refuses to understand that the federal laws on background checks apply everywhere, and so there is no "loophole".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's time for you to grow up, your only rebuttal is mindful of a child, a dull child at that, who repeats the same refrain over and over and expects to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


Um...


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
Click to expand...


Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better


----------



## francoHFW

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who refuses to understand that the federal laws on background checks apply everywhere, and so there is no "loophole".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's time for you to grow up, your only rebuttal is mindful of a child, a dull child at that, who repeats the same refrain over and over and expects to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...
Click to expand...

Then explain how there are no gunshow loopholes on background checks, with links...DUH


----------



## TemplarKormac

kaz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
Click to expand...


A quest to prevent tragedy caused one instead. Wry knows that, yet he insists on gun control policies. In fact his kind thrives on tragedy, feeding off of it to further an agenda.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who refuses to understand that the federal laws on background checks apply everywhere, and so there is no "loophole".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's time for you to grow up, your only rebuttal is mindful of a child, a dull child at that, who repeats the same refrain over and over and expects to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then explain how there are no gunshow loopholes on background checks, with links...DUH
Click to expand...



Explain how many weapons were purchased from gun shows that were used in any mass murder.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
Click to expand...


Or that those weapons were legally purchased and owned by the killers mother.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I think it's time for you to grow up your only rebuttal is mindful of a child, a dull child at that, who repeats the same refrain over and over and expects to be taken seriously.


^^^
Irony so thick a continental engineer could not cut it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no response to pure ignorance and brainwashed idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who refuses to understand that the federal laws on background checks apply everywhere, and so there is no "loophole".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's time for you to grow up, your only rebuttal is mindful of a child, a dull child at that, who repeats the same refrain over and over and expects to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then explain how there are no gunshow loopholes on background checks, with links...DUH
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to understand that federal law regarding background checks applies everywhere, therefore negating any argument that there is some "loophole" for gun shows?


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or that those weapons were legally purchased and owned by the killers mother.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Wry is so sure he can keep the 310 million guns in the US away from the bad guys as well as the hundreds of millions more in the rest of the world and the unlimited number international weapons makers could make while we keep the borders open for anyone to walk across carrying whatever they want that we can actually prevent people from being able to defend themselves and no number of mass murders that take place while his victims are unarmed by law is going to shake that view


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
Click to expand...


His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.

A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult; a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult; a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required before anyone is provided a gun license, and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.

No law prevents crimes, no law will prevent murder, rape, arson, robbery, grand theft or speeding.  There are two reasons why laws are obeyed:

People believe the law is fair and ethically sound;

People obey the law out of fear of the consequences if they don't.
How do we punish law violators:

We fine them
We jail them
We take away rights and privileges.
Sell, give, loan or in any manner allow one's gun(s) to be in the possession of an unlicensed person, and one will be punished. 

A loss of license takes away the Second Amendment Right as well as all guns owned or possessed by the criminal;

A fine takes away their money;

Jail takes away their liberty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;


I have a drill and all the time in the world.


> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;


I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.


> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required


It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.


> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.


Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.

You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
[


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
Click to expand...


I'd suggest therapy, however "Yes, but" would infuriate most therapists and fire you as a patient.

Missing the point of my post goes far beyond willful ignorance, it suggests to me a pathological need to always be 100% right and thus feel superior to others.

That said, you can refrain from a Pot Kettle response, that an "Irony", both hackneyed effort to post something, when one cannot discuss an issue adroitly.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
Click to expand...

If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life



And 25 more people as well.  People who had no chance to secure the gun and no chance to have a gun legally to defend themselves.  Exactly the point I made.  There are 310 million guns in this country, and your plan is to prevent people from defending themselves while keeping the 310 million guns away from the nut jobs.  How'd your plan work for the 25 people who did not have a chance to secure the weapon?

Not only that, but your plan also includes keeping guns out of the country while you simultaneously fight to let anyone walk across our border who wants to


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> How do we punish law violators:
> 
> We fine them
> We jail them
> We take away rights and privileges.
> Sell, give, loan or in any manner allow one's gun(s) to be in the possession of an unlicensed person, and one will be punished.
> 
> A loss of license takes away the Second Amendment Right as well as all guns owned or possessed by the criminal;
> 
> A fine takes away their money;
> 
> Jail takes away their liberty.



And all that works on law abiding citizens, which is how you maximize the carnage at every shooting. The trick, Holmes, is how do you keep the guns away from the criminals who don't follow the law while you keep guns out of the hands of people who do?


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we punish law violators:
> 
> We fine them
> We jail them
> We take away rights and privileges.
> Sell, give, loan or in any manner allow one's gun(s) to be in the possession of an unlicensed person, and one will be punished.
> 
> A loss of license takes away the Second Amendment Right as well as all guns owned or possessed by the criminal;
> 
> A fine takes away their money;
> 
> Jail takes away their liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that works on law abiding citizens, which is how you maximize the carnage at every shooting. The trick, Holmes, is how do you keep the guns away from the criminals who don't follow the law while you keep guns out of the hands of people who do?
Click to expand...

He knows there is no way to prevent criminals from getting guns; he is only interested in restricting the rights of the law abiding.
Needlessly and unconstitutionally.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd suggest therapy, however "Yes, but" would infuriate most therapists and fire you as a patient.
> 
> Missing the point of my post goes far beyond willful ignorance, it suggests to me a pathological need to always be 100% right and thus feel superior to others.
> 
> That said, you can refrain from a Pot Kettle response, that an "Irony", both hackneyed effort to post something, when one cannot discuss an issue adroitly.
Click to expand...


The point of your post includes the magic step where suddenly criminals follow the law.  If getting criminals to follow the law is as simple as making a new law as you believe, why don't we just skip the gun laws and make murder illegal?  Oh wait, we did.  It didn't work.  But gun laws, that criminals will follow.  Makes perfect sense.  to a perfect idiot...


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.
Click to expand...

She LET him walk to the school????? I really don't think that her not saying, "No, Adam, you may not walk to the school and shoot children" was tacit permission to do so, considering she was dead when her son left the house. Geeze Rye! A former LEO should be better informed on this issue.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
Click to expand...


You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.
Click to expand...

Except for, say, post 5522.

YOU, on the other hand,  have refused every request to show their necessity and efficacy; you only offer tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She LET him walk to the school????? I really don't think that her not saying, "No, Adam, you may not walk to the school and shoot children" was tacit permission to do so, considering she was dead when her son left the house. Geeze Rye! A former LEO should be better informed on this issue.
Click to expand...

WC has neither the need nor the desire for his statements and positions to reflect reality in any way shape of form.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She LET him walk to the school????? I really don't think that her not saying, "No, Adam, you may not walk to the school and shoot children" was tacit permission to do so, considering she was dead when her son left the house. Geeze Rye! A former LEO should be better informed on this issue.
Click to expand...


Once again you mangled my point to fit your pathological needs. Emphasis was on a gun safe [don't bother writing once again that the shooter could easily drill into the gun safe and obtain the tools of death, the link below explains why).

Opening a Safe Without a Combination | Fortress Lock and Security

Once again you've been proved to be an ignoramus, a liar and a fool.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She LET him walk to the school????? I really don't think that her not saying, "No, Adam, you may not walk to the school and shoot children" was tacit permission to do so, considering she was dead when her son left the house. Geeze Rye! A former LEO should be better informed on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you mangled my point to fit your pathological needs.
Click to expand...

You stated:


> His mother let the [Sandyhook] shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.


No matter how you cut it, this is a statement of abject ignorance or utter dishonesty.
Tell us which.


> Emphasis was on a gun safe [don't bother writing once again that the shooter could easily drill into the gun safe...


Who said it could be _easily _done?


> Opening a Safe Without a Combination | Fortress Lock and Security


Yeah?  And what about this one?
Stack-On | Products | 8-Gun Steel Security Cabinet


----------



## francoHFW

The background check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.


More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.
Click to expand...

 Tell us again how there's no Gun Show loophole, WITH LINKS, MORON.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how there's no Gun Show loophole, WITH LINKS, MORON.
Click to expand...

You refuse to understand that the loophole does not exist, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you,.
You, however, understand that you cannot show is how Federal law requiring background checks does not apply at gun shows - that is, you know you cannot show how there IS a loophole.
But, like a good village idiot, you parrot your masters' voices, without thought or question.
They're proud of you.


----------



## francoHFW

Hilarious. LINK? I've provided several. Idiot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Hilarious. LINK? I've provided several. Idiot.


Nowhere have you shown that the federal law requiring a background check for a gun purchase is suspended at a gun show.
Nowhere will yo you find such a link because no such suspension of said law exists.
You cannot prove that there is a loophole.
You refuse to understand that the loophole does not exist, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you
That is, you choose to be wrong.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
Click to expand...



Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012: 

Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons

*New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state. 

The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”

The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws. 
*California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.

*Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.


Gun laws in Vermont?
Gun crime in Vermont?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how there's no Gun Show loophole, WITH LINKS, MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You refuse to understand that the loophole does not exist, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you,.
> You, however, understand that you cannot show is how Federal law requiring background checks does not apply at gun shows - that is, you know you cannot show how there IS a loophole.
> But, like a good village idiot, you parrot your masters' voices, without thought or question.
> They're proud of you.
Click to expand...


First you should never call anyone an idiot or dishonest.

Next,

My wife and I went to a home show and inquired at the booth about having a water well drilled on our son's property.  

We got the sales pitch and decided the cost was too much.  The salesman than said, I can do that for half price.  I have a crew who can do the job and not pull permits.

Your claim that such an offer never happens at gun shows is at best a half truth.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
Click to expand...


What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?

Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?

There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
Click to expand...


It only goes to show how the strictest gun laws don't work.  You ask for proof and when proof is provided to you, you start with the personal insults which is pretty typical for a liberal.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
Click to expand...

Gun laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> 
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Click to expand...


Robbery laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Rape laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> 
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only goes to show how the strictest gun laws don't work.  You ask for proof and when proof is provided to you, you start with the personal insults which is pretty typical for a liberal.
Click to expand...


No moron .... LOL [Mea Culpa, I've lowered my writing to the level of a gun lover]. 

I've written opinions with these caveats, laws do not prevent crime and laws are not a panacea.  I explained why most of us obey the laws and what motivates such compliance.

You and others like you build straw men, pretend the Second A. is sacrosanct and lie.  Grow up. 

I don't want to take your toys away, you and those like you will eventually alienate normal people to such an extent a license to own or possess a gun will seem to be a cherished privilege.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robbery laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
> Rape laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Click to expand...

Murder laws prevent no crime. Does one need to obtain a license to purchase a claw hammer? A knife? Rat poison?
Then why guns?
You seem to think anyone (other than yourself) who possesses a gun is one bad day away from homicide. Why? Could it be your awareness of your own poor self control you are projecting onto others?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A secure gun safe would have made the act of a mad man more difficult;
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> a license to own, possess or have have made the mad man's act more difficult;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> a complete national registry of mentally unstable and potentially violent persons should be required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> 
> 
> 
> and the license should be checked as valid before selling, giving or loaning a gun to anyone, this too would have make the mad man's act more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
Click to expand...


you mean besides that none of your suggestions worked?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, this is what Wry Catcher said back in August:
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it'll take a tragedy which impacts you or your family, and in that way one at a time you and other callous conservatives may see the light. I don't wish that to happen to anyone, even misguided jerks like you and M14; but the tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents, and I do believe in karma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Wry, what is this about you claiming to be "rational?" I told you. You are a troll, and an abject partisan. Oh, and you've completely lost your mind.
> 
> You show here that liberals are waiting to pounce on any tragedy involving a firearm to advance their agenda. "The tree of sanity needs to be refreshed by the blood of innocents." Disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's have Wry explain to the Sandy Hook families how unfortunately he had to let the shooter walk the school sure he was unopposed by weapons because he wanted to avert a "tragedy."  I'm sure that'll make them feel a lot better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His mother let the shooter walk to the school, and it cost her, her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She LET him walk to the school????? I really don't think that her not saying, "No, Adam, you may not walk to the school and shoot children" was tacit permission to do so, considering she was dead when her son left the house. Geeze Rye! A former LEO should be better informed on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you mangled my point to fit your pathological needs. Emphasis was on a gun safe [don't bother writing once again that the shooter could easily drill into the gun safe and obtain the tools of death, the link below explains why).
> 
> Opening a Safe Without a Combination | Fortress Lock and Security
> 
> Once again you've been proved to be an ignoramus, a liar and a fool.
Click to expand...


Exactly, your proposal is that people's guns are locked safely at home when they are murdered while we prevent all the psychos from getting any of the 310 million guns in the country and we keep further guns from entering by magic while we import illegal Democrat voters.  Then you say unlike you, we don't have a realistic plan...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a drill and all the time in the world.
> I have a license to own and to carry.  I an not inhibited by it at all.
> It is not illegal for "mentally unstable" people to own a gun, and so any such registry will not prevent a sale to such a person.
> Nothing here prevents me or anyone else from selling or loaning a gun to anyone.
> 
> You only  offer the same old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution,.
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
Click to expand...


I like how you think conceding your plan won't work means you think you won


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robbery laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
> Rape laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Click to expand...


What a stupid analogy.  Ernie is pointing out people who want to not be victims need to break the law.  You think making other people victims is analogous to that.  You need to return home, your village is missing it's idiot


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missing the point of my post...
> 
> 
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun laws prevent no crime, they only serve to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Click to expand...


And law abiding citizens into dead people


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how there's no Gun Show loophole, WITH LINKS, MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You refuse to understand that the loophole does not exist, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you,.
> You, however, understand that you cannot show is how Federal law requiring background checks does not apply at gun shows - that is, you know you cannot show how there IS a loophole.
> But, like a good village idiot, you parrot your masters' voices, without thought or question.
> They're proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you should never call anyone an idiot or dishonest.
> 
> Next,
> 
> My wife and I went to a home show and inquired at the booth about having a water well drilled on our son's property.
> 
> We got the sales pitch and decided the cost was too much.  The salesman than said, I can do that for half price.  I have a crew who can do the job and not pull permits.
> 
> Your claim that such an offer never happens at gun shows is at best a half truth.
Click to expand...


It's funny how these stereotypical stories always actually happened to bigots


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by "missing" you mean "refuted yet again your tired, old, tired, useless restrictions for which you know you have no sound argument, that only restrict the rights of the law abiding and violate the constitution:  - then yes, I missed your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only goes to show how the strictest gun laws don't work.  You ask for proof and when proof is provided to you, you start with the personal insults which is pretty typical for a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moron .... LOL [Mea Culpa, I've lowered my writing to the level of a gun lover].
> 
> I've written opinions with these caveats, laws do not prevent crime and laws are not a panacea.  I explained why most of us obey the laws and what motivates such compliance.
Click to expand...


You know Wry, I almost gave up on you.  Now you're getting closer to reality:  Most of us obey the laws which motivates compliance.  There you go.  More gun laws would do that: they would motivate the non-criminal element of our society.  But...... that won't do squat for the criminal element.  

Those people won't obey the law.  That's why they're criminals in the first place.


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've offered no proof or evidence that my suggestions don't work.  All you offer is your extremely biased opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're on the Sandy Hook story, here are the top states with the toughest gun law restrictions in 2012:
> 
> Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Restrictions on Weapons
> 
> *New York.* The Empire State finished 50th — meaning worst — on Guns & Ammo’s list of the best states for gun owners. The only entity the magazine put lower, at No. 51, was the District of Columbia, which is not a state.
> 
> The efforts of Gov. Andrew Cuomo brought New York that distinction, contends GodfatherPolitics.com, adding that “gun manufacturers are leaving the state because of the draconian laws.”
> 
> The Brady Campaign listed New York as having the fifth strongest gun laws.
> *California.* The Brady campaign placed the Golden State first on its list while Guns & Ammo had it fifth. California and Rhode Island in 2012 had been the only states to require background checks on all gun sales at the point of purchase, though New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado joined that group the following year, the Brady Campaign noted.
> 
> *Connecticut.* The Constitution State has imposed serious firearms restrictions since a man in December 2012 fatally shot 26 people at that state’s Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning a gun on himself, according to Guns & Ammo. It added that Connecticut was “not exactly a gun-friendly state” before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Are you stupid, or do you believe telling the same lie over and over is honest, since the end you seek justifies the means?
> 
> There are four of you who play this game, posting the same crap over and over ad nausea, grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only goes to show how the strictest gun laws don't work.  You ask for proof and when proof is provided to you, you start with the personal insults which is pretty typical for a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No moron .... LOL [Mea Culpa, I've lowered my writing to the level of a gun lover].
> 
> I've written opinions with these caveats, laws do not prevent crime and laws are not a panacea.  I explained why most of us obey the laws and what motivates such compliance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Wry, I almost gave up on you.  Now you're getting closer to reality:  Most of us obey the laws which motivates compliance.  There you go.  More gun laws would do that: they would motivate the non-criminal element of our society.  But...... that won't do squat for the criminal element.
> 
> Those people won't obey the law.  That's why they're criminals in the first place.
Click to expand...

Here you go, Wry.  Maybe you should have looked this one up before...

"noun
6.a person guilty or convicted of a crime."

the definition of criminal


----------



## kaz

Maybe instead of gun laws to prevent criminals from committing crimes, we should just pass laws making it illegal to commit crimes...


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Maybe instead of gun laws to prevent criminals from committing crimes, we should just pass laws making it illegal to commit crimes...


Maybe we can just ask the People to abstain and just say "no" to gun violence instead of drugs.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how there's no Gun Show loophole, WITH LINKS, MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You refuse to understand that the loophole does not exist, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you,.
> You, however, understand that you cannot show is how Federal law requiring background checks does not apply at gun shows - that is, you know you cannot show how there IS a loophole.
> But, like a good village idiot, you parrot your masters' voices, without thought or question.
> They're proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you should never call anyone an idiot or dishonest.
Click to expand...

Never mind that we both know you cannot cite one instance me lying or being dishonest.
You understand that you cannot show how Federal law requiring background checks does not apply at gun shows - that is, you know you cannot show how there IS a loophole -  you simply refuse to admit it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> What part of *laws can't prevent all crime* is too hard for you to understand?


Knowing that, you _continue _to mindlessly push for unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The backgound check is for the nutjobs DUH. It will take time to work on criminals but WILL, brainwashed one line dingbat.
> 
> 
> 
> More mindless nonsense from a village useful idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how there's no Gun Show loophole, WITH LINKS, MORON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You refuse to understand that the loophole does not exist, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you,.
> You, however, understand that you cannot show is how Federal law requiring background checks does not apply at gun shows - that is, you know you cannot show how there IS a loophole.
> But, like a good village idiot, you parrot your masters' voices, without thought or question.
> They're proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you should never call anyone an idiot or dishonest.
> 
> Next,
> 
> My wife and I went to a home show and inquired at the booth about having a water well drilled on our son's property.
> 
> We got the sales pitch and decided the cost was too much.  The salesman than said, I can do that for half price.  I have a crew who can do the job and not pull permits.
> 
> Your claim that such an offer never happens at gun shows is at best a half truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny how these stereotypical stories always actually happened to bigots
Click to expand...

Bigots that have never placed themselves to find out for sure.

Vendors at gun shows have to obtain a federal firearms license. They need to provide it to gun show promoters to rent space. Virtually all FFLs do background checks on every customer, every time (unless the customer has a signed permission slip from Eric Holder) or risk losing his livelihood.


----------



## francoHFW

Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.


Nothing you have posted in any way indicates that federal background check laws do not apply at gun shows.
That being the case, you have not proven a loophole exists.
You choose to be wrong.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you have posted in any way indicates that federal background check laws do not apply at gun shows.
> That being the case, you have not proven a loophole exists.
> You choose to be wrong.
Click to expand...


Wry assumes everything that comes out of his ass should be taken as gospel truth while nothing anyone else says should be given any consideration.  But only because he's so fair


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.



And you have yet to show anybody how gun shows have been a problem when it comes to criminals getting guns. They don't buy their guns at gun shows.


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you have posted in any way indicates that federal background check laws do not apply at gun shows.
> That being the case, you have not proven a loophole exists.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wry assumes everything that comes out of his ass should be taken as gospel truth while nothing anyone else says should be given any consideration.  But only because he's so fair
Click to expand...

Franco is a troll, nothing more -- a wet paper bag is more than a match for his ability to lay out a sound argument.


----------



## danielpalos

I hereby give notice to gun lovers, that Counties already have the (police) power to "commandeer" a Posse, for the Good of the County.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.


Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

The Facts about Gun Shows


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold.
Click to expand...

He refuses to understand this.
That is, he chooses to be wrong.
Not much you can do with people like that.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you have posted in any way indicates that federal background check laws do not apply at gun shows.
> That being the case, you have not proven a loophole exists.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wry assumes everything that comes out of his ass should be taken as gospel truth while nothing anyone else says should be given any consideration.  But only because he's so fair
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Franco is a troll, nothing more -- a wet paper bag is more than a match for his ability to lay out a sound argument.
Click to expand...

 For example, AGAIN:

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws - Governing
www.governing.com/.../gun-show...checks-state-laws-map.html
Cached
Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only ...
*Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the...*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

Cached

The "Gun show loophole" is a political term in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows.
So, where is your evidence that no such background check loophole exists? RW idiocy. So why can't private sellers at gun shows and
elsewhere be covered? And yes, this is where many of the new guns in Dem cities come from, as I linked.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, all the sources we've given you, Governors, wiki,Mayors, gun experts are all lying, there is no loophole. Yet you have no link saying there isn't. Brainwashed ignoramuses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you have posted in any way indicates that federal background check laws do not apply at gun shows.
> That being the case, you have not proven a loophole exists.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wry assumes everything that comes out of his ass should be taken as gospel truth while nothing anyone else says should be given any consideration.  But only because he's so fair
Click to expand...

He is emulating an asshole cop that is convinced he's right.
People like that are thoroughly convinced they know the truth because their word is accepted by virtue of the side arm on their hip.
Wry claims to be a retired LEO. My guess is that his retirement was not his choice.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> For example, AGAIN:


Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
You choose to be wrong.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
Click to expand...

 My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
How is there a loophole in the federal law?


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
Click to expand...

 "Private sellers" duh...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
Click to expand...


It also says that out of all the illegal guns found on criminals, only .7% have any association with a gun show.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says that out of all the illegal guns found on criminals, only .7% have any association with a gun show.
Click to expand...

 Where? Link? I got 10% of them came from  gun shows...


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
Click to expand...

Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.

You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says that out of all the illegal guns found on criminals, only .7% have any association with a gun show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where? Link? I got 10% of them came from  gun shows...
Click to expand...



*Myth: Gun shows are supermarkets for criminals*

*Fact:* Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers. 31

Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> 
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
Click to expand...

 "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> 
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
Click to expand...



Yeah...and you know what moron....if a felon buys a gun from a private seller and is caught in possession of that gun..they can already be arrested...right now, without "universal" background checks.  And how exactly would a "universal" background check work?  

You guys want to get the guy selling the gun, not the guy buying the gun....admit that....you know that no matter what law you create, you can't stop criminals....but you can really mess up a normal, honest citizen if you can make them get background checks for every single time they sell a gun...to a family member, to a friend, or when they loan a gun to a friend, or a wife......you just can't wait to ruin their lives....while the felon goes on their merry way.

We are not police.  It is not our job to take time out of our life to drag a buyer to a gun store or a police station to get them a background check when we sell grandpa's shotgun.  The felon knows they can't buy that gun.  When you catch them committing a crime, or just in possession of the gun....arrest them and lock them up.

That is actual gun control....but you guys don't want that do you....


----------



## francoHFW

Did somebody say no loopholes would end crime?? Just cut it over time. You people are out of your tiny NRA/Pub brainwashed little minds...


----------



## francoHFW

This would slow nutjobs NOW.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Did somebody say no loopholes would end crime?? Just cut it over time. You people are out of your tiny NRA/Pub brainwashed little minds...




The current laws have not cut crime....every mass shooter has either submitted to current background checks or gotten their guns without them...every one.   Criminals are not getting background checks for the guns they use to murder 8,454 people a year......

We are not cops.  It is not our job to take people in to get background checks.

Right now, under current law if a felon is caught with a gun, they can be arrested...so arrest them when you catch them...no need to license any gun owner to do that, no need to register any gun to do that...that can be done right now.....


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> This would slow nutjobs NOW.




It's not slowing them now.  They get friends and relatives to buy the guns for them, or they steal them...that bypasses current federally required background checks and those techniques will bypass "universal" background checks.....

What don't you get about being able to arrest people who commit crimes with guns right now under current law, or the ability to arrest felons right now under current law.

When you make contact with the criminal or the felon...you can arrest them if they have a gun......it is as simple as that.  

The problem....prosecutors and judges will not lock up criminals who use guns.  That is the only problem that needs to be fixed.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Did somebody say no loopholes would end crime?? Just cut it over time. You people are out of your tiny NRA/Pub brainwashed little minds...




You know...you guys here "license gun owners," and "register all guns," and you start to drool.....you are the brainwashed rubes.....there is no need to do either thing.....you just arrest people who break the law with guns....

What can't you guys understand about that...and you can make "universal" sooper dooper, extra special background checks....and criminals will get friends and relatives to buy their guns or just steal them.....just like they do now....

But with the new checks....more paperwork, more police manpower, and more money...to accomplish nothing....but...it does allow you to punish normal people who want to own guns.

Come on...admit it.  All you really care about is punishing people who want to own a gun...be brave, just admit it.


----------



## francoHFW

Nutjobs don't socialize like that DUHHH.

Yup, verything's fine. Ay caramba, dolts.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Nutjobs don't socialize like that DUHHH.
> 
> Yup, verything's fine. Ay caramba, dolts.




The main way criminals get guns.....straw purchases/friends and relatives buying for them because they can get past background checks....and stealing them....and buying already stolen guns.

Gun shows....about 1% of criminal guns come from there.......and if you used police resources conducting stings at gun shows you could lower that even more...all without hassling normal, law abiding gun owners...


----------



## francoHFW

What about nutjobs, parrot? Can you THINK? lol


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> What about nutjobs, parrot? Can you THINK? lol



what about them Borg drone......the Sandy Hook shooter had no mental health flags that would have stopped him from passing a background check.....the same for the Colorado theater shooter....he did not have anything that would have stopped him in his mental health history....,,

Let's say you do put mental health info. In the system.....then the nut jobs will steal their guns...just like the Sandy Hook shooter did...or buy them illegally like the Columbine shooters did........

Again...you guys push for it knowing it won't stop criminals or mass shooters.

but as we learned from Britain...they now want to require...require, normal people without mental health issues to go and get examined, and get a note from a mental health professional before they can get permission to own a gun...and those in the news report said that no Doctor, under threat of being sued if their patient goes on a rampage, is going to sign off on that....


That is the next step and one that needs to be addressed...we know what you guys want and how you think and we aren't going to submit to your irrational fear of guns.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about nutjobs, parrot? Can you THINK? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what about them Borg drone......the Sandy Hook shooter had no mental health flags that would have stopped him from passing a background check.....the same for the Colorado theater shooter....he did not have anything that would have stopped him in his mental health history....,,
> 
> Let's say you do put mental health info. In the system.....then the nut jobs will steal their guns...just like the Sandy Hook shooter did...or buy them illegally like the Columbine shooters did........
> 
> Again...you guys push for it knowing it won't stop criminals or mass shooters.
> 
> but as we learned from Britain...they now want to require...require, normal people without mental health issues to go and get examined, and get a note from a mental health professional before they can get permission to own a gun...and those in the news report said that no Doctor, under threat of being sued if their patient goes on a rampage, is going to sign off on that....
> 
> 
> That is the next step and one that needs to be addressed...we know what you guys want and how you think and we aren't going to submit to your irrational fear of guns.
Click to expand...


That is a good point.  Liberals get what they want through taxation or lawsuits.  People who are not a threat to society will have a shrink report them to the government anyway so they can't buy a gun just to escape liability.  When the media addresses the problem and everybody learns about it, those in need of psychological help will avoid getting that help just so they don't end up on that list.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nutjobs don't socialize like that DUHHH.
> 
> Yup, verything's fine. Ay caramba, dolts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main way criminals get guns.....straw purchases/friends and relatives buying for them because they can get past background checks....and stealing them....and buying already stolen guns.
> 
> Gun shows....about 1% of criminal guns come from there.......and if you used police resources conducting stings at gun shows you could lower that even more...all without hassling normal, law abiding gun owners...
Click to expand...


Note liberals don't bring up how the actual guns used in actual crimes were actually attained, doesn't fit the narrative


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

So I'm reading my local news this morning and ran across this story.  Nothing too unusual for over here, but I thought about this forum and wanted to ask the anti-gun people here how any law would have prevented this? 

*UPDATE: 14-year-old shot in the back on Cleveland's east side*
_Posted: Sep 18, 2015 10:08 PM EDTUpdated: Sep 19, 2015 11:37 AM EDT_

_CLEVELAND, OH (WOIO) -

Fifth District Cleveland Police Detectives report that a 14-year-old boy was shot in the back.

It happened in the 1400 block of East 115th Street just before 10 p.m. on Friday night.

The victim told police that he was outside listening to music with friends when they were approached by three teenage boys on bikes who shot at them.

He was taken to MetroHealth Medical Center and treated for non-life threatening injuries.

Authorities say this case remains under investigation.

UPDATE: 14-year-old shot in the back on Cleveland's east side
_
Obviously these "teenagers" on bicycles were too young to legally purchase a firearm.  A seller would have had to broken the law to sell them a gun.  It goes without saying that a background check wasn't done.  So what law would have stopped these hoodlums from getting a gun?


----------



## francoHFW

Thanks to corrupt Pubs and the NRA (and of course the idiot dupes) we're awash in guns, so of course ending the private seller/gunshow loophole would take time to help, except in the case of nutjob massacres. You RWers are total functional morons at this point.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Thanks to corrupt Pubs and the NRA (and of course the idiot dupes) we're awash in guns, so of course ending the private seller/gunshow loophole would take time to help, except in the case of nutjob massacres. You RWers are total functional morons at this point.



Actually what we are are realists.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Thanks to corrupt Pubs and the NRA (and of course the idiot dupes) we're awash in guns, so of course ending the private seller/gunshow loophole would take time to help, except in the case of nutjob massacres. You RWers are total functional morons at this point.




There is no gun show loophole....all vendors at gun shows must do the Federal Background check.  What you are trying to make a point about, Private Sellers who sell at gun shows.......will just as easily sell guns to people without background checks as they do now........especially if they are looking to sell guns to people who can't pass background checks.....and if they do so knowingly, they can be arrested right now, with existing law....and your federal background check is pointless....again, the felon already knows they can't buy or own a gun....


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Thanks to corrupt Pubs and the NRA (and of course the idiot dupes) we're awash in guns, so of course ending the private seller/gunshow loophole would take time to help, except in the case of nutjob massacres. You RWers are total functional morons at this point.




Look...if you care about stopping criminals from getting guns at gun shows...you know, the whole 1% who do that....here is how you actually, effectively do that...

1) have undercover cops set up booths....when crimnals come to buy guns, they tell  them they need to do background checks, if they say the can't pass them, they offer to sell anyway...if they buy...you arrest them.

No need to license gun owners, register guns or create "universal" background checks.

2) have undercover cops try to buy guns at gun shows...they go to vendors and private sellers, at the time they are going to make the buy, they tell the seller they can't actually pass a background check...if the seller says they will still sell them the gun.....arrest them.......

No need to license gun owners, register guns or create "universal" background checks

You would actually treat illegal gun sales like all other crimes....instead of trying to act like Tom Cruise in "Minority Report," and stop gun crime and mass shootings before they happen.....because we don't have "pre-cogs" to predict the crime....


----------



## francoHFW

Or just pass the gd bill lol...


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, AGAIN:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
Click to expand...

THERE IS NO FEDERAL GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Or just pass the gd bill lol...


Or not. Why place restrictions on law abiding citizens that will do NOTHING to cut down on guns in the hands of criminals?


----------



## Ernie S.

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> 
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...and you know what moron....if a felon buys a gun from a private seller and is caught in possession of that gun..they can already be arrested...right now, without "universal" background checks.  And how exactly would a "universal" background check work?
> 
> You guys want to get the guy selling the gun, not the guy buying the gun....admit that....you know that no matter what law you create, you can't stop criminals....but you can really mess up a normal, honest citizen if you can make them get background checks for every single time they sell a gun...to a family member, to a friend, or when they loan a gun to a friend, or a wife......you just can't wait to ruin their lives....while the felon goes on their merry way.
> 
> We are not police.  It is not our job to take time out of our life to drag a buyer to a gun store or a police station to get them a background check when we sell grandpa's shotgun.  The felon knows they can't buy that gun.  When you catch them committing a crime, or just in possession of the gun....arrest them and lock them up.
> 
> That is actual gun control....but you guys don't want that do you....
Click to expand...

Logic doesn't make any sense to Franco.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> What about nutjobs, parrot? Can you THINK? lol


Yes we can all think.... except for you, that is. All you do is feel. Liberalism= emotionalism over logic.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Thanks to corrupt Pubs and the NRA (and of course the idiot dupes) we're awash in guns, so of course ending the private seller/gunshow loophole would take time to help, except in the case of nutjob massacres. You RWers are total functional morons at this point.


We're awash in guns because gun ownership is a protected right. People acquire more because Liberals won't lock up criminals forcing citizens to either surrender their lives and property or protect themselves with a weapon.


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or just pass the gd bill lol...
> 
> 
> 
> Or not. Why place restrictions on law abiding citizens that will do NOTHING to cut down on guns in the hands of criminals?
Click to expand...



Because disarming normal people is the only thing they care about....they know criminals break the law...they know even better that a law will stop normal citizens...so they focus on that....


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or just pass the gd bill lol...
> 
> 
> 
> Or not. Why place restrictions on law abiding citizens that will do NOTHING to cut down on guns in the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because disarming normal people is the only thing they care about....they know criminals break the law...they know even better that a law will stop normal citizens...so they focus on that....
Click to expand...


Criminals aren't a threat to government, honest citizens are.  That's why they don't care if criminals have guns but they want to make sure the rest of us don't


----------



## danielpalos

Posse duty/Jury duty; may one forgive the other--that is the question.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or just pass the gd bill lol...
> 
> 
> 
> Or not. Why place restrictions on law abiding citizens that will do NOTHING to cut down on guns in the hands of criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because disarming normal people is the only thing they care about....they know criminals break the law...they know even better that a law will stop normal citizens...so they focus on that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals aren't a threat to government, honest citizens are.  That's why they don't care if criminals have guns but they want to make sure the rest of us don't
Click to expand...


That's part of it.  The larger part is that each party wants to expand their base.  One of the largest bases Democrats have are victims:  victims of racism, victims of sexism, victims of Big Oil, victims of the War on Women, victims of Big Pharma, victims of rich people, victims of Corporations....... 

When you're a victim, you need somebody strong enough to stand up against your aggressor, and that would be government.  

So what would happen if they were able to take away our guns? We would all be victims of crime.  The criminals would have it over on us like they did decades ago when we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves.  That's a lot of victims. 

Liberal politicians don't hate guns, they hate the idea that we can defend ourselves with those guns.  We don't need government to protect us, we can do that just fine provided we are legally allowed.  

If we ever rid our country of victims, we would rid our country of the Democrat party, and they know this.


----------



## rightwinger

Keep guns from criminals...simple plan

1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner



Great idea!  Case solved!

Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...

All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?


----------



## danielpalos

What objection can there be to gun lovers registering for posse duty with law enforcement?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> What objection can there be to gun lovers registering for posse duty with law enforcement?



How can a tea party turn into a rugby match?


----------



## danielpalos

They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.



yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner


Again, this will have zero effect on gun violence. Legal gun owners don't use their weapons to rob and kill people.
1. Knowing where weapons are will have no effect other than to facilitate picking them all up once Liberals achieve their goal of disarming the public.
2. Licensing gun owners will have zero effect other than placing another government roadblock in the way of exercising a right that "shall not be infringed". People that cannot pass a background check don't buy guns legally now. What will change once all legal owners are licensed?
3. A ballistic record of all guns? Really? NININ has about 1.5 million weapons in its data base now. These guns have already been used in a crime and the DB can be used to prosecute actual crimes. Universal ballistic fingerprinting would overwhelm the system with 200 times the data to sift through for no reason other that a back door to the national firearms registry y'all want.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
Click to expand...


I thought Libs were against involuntary servitude?


----------



## rightwinger

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
Click to expand...

Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives

However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Libs were against involuntary servitude?
Click to expand...


He's a Canadian though, I never know what he's talking about, ey?


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
Click to expand...


And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?

You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?


----------



## rightwinger

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this will have zero effect on gun violence. Legal gun owners don't use their weapons to rob and kill people.
> 1. Knowing where weapons are will have no effect other than to facilitate picking them all up once Liberals achieve their goal of disarming the public.
> 2. Licensing gun owners will have zero effect other than placing another government roadblock in the way of exercising a right that "shall not be infringed". People that cannot pass a background check don't buy guns legally now. What will change once all legal owners are licensed?
> 3. A ballistic record of all guns? Really? NININ has about 1.5 million weapons in its data base now. These guns have already been used in a crime and the DB can be used to prosecute actual crimes. Universal ballistic fingerprinting would overwhelm the system with 200 times the data to sift through for no reason other that a back door to the national firearms registry y'all want.
Click to expand...

A gun owner is not a criminal up until the time he pulls the trigger to kill someone without cause. 
Not all murders come from some bad guy wearing a mask. Most victims know their killer. Being able to trace a bullet at a crime scene to a specific gun is a huge enforcement tool.  Being able to knock on a door and say.....a gun you own was used in a murder...what can you tell us?


----------



## rightwinger

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
Click to expand...

You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
Click to expand...


You are a moving target, comrade big guy.  How does that keep guns out of the hands of criminals?


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
Click to expand...

It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Libs were against involuntary servitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Canadian though, I never know what he's talking about, ey?
Click to expand...

I have him on ignore and only see his mindless crap when responding to someone else. Life is good.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this will have zero effect on gun violence. Legal gun owners don't use their weapons to rob and kill people.
> 1. Knowing where weapons are will have no effect other than to facilitate picking them all up once Liberals achieve their goal of disarming the public.
> 2. Licensing gun owners will have zero effect other than placing another government roadblock in the way of exercising a right that "shall not be infringed". People that cannot pass a background check don't buy guns legally now. What will change once all legal owners are licensed?
> 3. A ballistic record of all guns? Really? NININ has about 1.5 million weapons in its data base now. These guns have already been used in a crime and the DB can be used to prosecute actual crimes. Universal ballistic fingerprinting would overwhelm the system with 200 times the data to sift through for no reason other that a back door to the national firearms registry y'all want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun owner is not a criminal up until the time he pulls the trigger to kill someone without cause.
> Not all murders come from some bad guy wearing a mask. Most victims know their killer. Being able to trace a bullet at a crime scene to a specific gun is a huge enforcement tool.  Being able to knock on a door and say.....a gun you own was used in a murder...what can you tell us?
Click to expand...

What are the odds that my Arisaka 7.7mm built in 1936 will be used in a crime? Why fingerprint it unless your intent is to make confiscation easier at some later date?


----------



## IsaacNewton

I'd say the simple answer is the same way we keep dynamite from criminals.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
Click to expand...

A fair number of bullets are traced to guns already in the data base.
The data base contains evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation. A national DB makes sense. Turning NIBIN into a registry containing 300 million records unlikely to EVER be used as evidence only makes sense if you want to know where every weapon is for some non-investigative purpose.


----------



## rightwinger

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
Click to expand...

More paranoia from gun nuts

I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me


----------



## kaz

IsaacNewton said:


> I'd say the simple answer is the same way we keep dynamite from criminals.



Yes, criminals kill a lot of moles, great point


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
Click to expand...


And what do we learn from this, comrade grasshopper?


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
Click to expand...

Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
Click to expand...


Is there a political party out there that would love to confiscate cars, but can't because they don't have the power?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
Click to expand...


That may be true in a case like a murder/ suicide.  But who would use their own registered gun to shoot the convenience store guy to rob him of his money?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
Click to expand...

the point is, dear, that law enforcement must always "win its matches" to ensure the domestic Tranquility of our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Libs were against involuntary servitude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a Canadian though, I never know what he's talking about, ey?
Click to expand...

sometimes i want to learn more about native American, cultural anthropology, up there.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is, dear, that law enforcement must always "win its matches" to ensure the domestic Tranquility of our free States.
Click to expand...


You mean Provinces, eh?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is, dear, that law enforcement must always "win its matches" to ensure the domestic Tranquility of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Provinces, eh?
Click to expand...

whatever; would  you be terribly upset if i  "commandeered" you, for a few seconds?


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner




And each one has been shown that it will not stop criminals or mass shooters at any level and the last one....isnt' even practical since guns are metal, and as they are used the alleged fingerprint will change with time.

1.  If a gun is purchased by a straw purchaser, and given to a criminal, right now, they report the gun lost or stolen..so you can register every last gun owner...and it will not change what we have now.  If a gun is stolen, then ownership traceabiltiy is meaningless..right?

What I have proposed is already possible.  You catch a criminal committing a crime  with a gun, you arrest them, you catch a felon just possessig a gun, you arrest them.  You then use normal police work to find out where they got the gun from, which you can do right now without registering all guns.  If you find an illegal gun dealer, one breaking the law, you use current police techniques to capture him...again, no need to register guns.

As we have seen around the world, registering guns is the first step toward confiscation, forced turn ins and any number of other anti gun extremist techniques to go after normal people with guns.  Registering guns only effects non criminals.

*Also...a Supreme Court decision already states that criminals do not have to register their guns, since that would be a violation of their 5th amendment protection against self incrimination, there by making it even dumber to register the guns of non criminals, the very people not breaking the law with guns.
*
2.   Criminals already get past current mandatory federal background checks by stealing the guns, or by getting a straw purchaser to buy the guns for them or by buying the already illegally acquired gun from another  source. These same methods would also avoid so called "universal background checks" the minute they go into affect.

As far as training goes, today, with current practices, in 2013 there were a grand total of 505 accidental gun deaths in a country of over 320 million people with over 12.8 million people carrying guns for protection in a country with over 320 million guns in private hands....

505.

That's it.

So our current practices, un enforced by the government are doing a great job at keeping people safe with guns.  American gun owners are already incredibly responsible with their gun ownership.  If it isn't broken, you don't have to fix it.

And the one thing that would make us even safer....gun safety classes in all public schools...you guys fight it and won't allow it...I just posted an article that showed that an anti gun extremist group is fightign a school based, gn safety program....

And the only people who will get a license....normal, law abiding citizens.  

And I live in Illinois.  We already have a licensing system..called the Firearm Owners Identification Card...which you need to buy any gun or bullet in this state.  And that system does not stop one shooting in Chicago by their gangs.   So again, it is a pointless waste of time to require normal citizens to get a license.

It is also an infringement because it would be an extra cost to exercising the right to self defense, especially for the poor who are less capable of affording extra fees and taxes on that right.  And they need to protect themselves more than anyone since they are underserved by a cities police department.

And since owning a gun is a right, just like voting, and democrats were told that it was illegal to charge a fee and require a test to exercise the right to vote, requiring a fee and a test to own and carry a gun is also un Constitutional.

*And again, licensing gun owners is a step toward banning and confiscation and a means to limit access to guns to only those approved by the government...as we see in Europe where only the rich and powerful have access to the supply of guns.
*
3.   They can alreay identify bullets to guns with current forensic science....any new demands are simply ways to increase the cost of guns to keep them out of the hands of normal people, since criminals who use the guns regardless of the fingerprint.

Added to that...the "fingerprint," will change over time as there is wear on the metal of the gun.

So....anything actually useful you want to try.....?


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
Click to expand...



they can already do that with current forensic techniques...the desire to create a new, useless mechanical feature in a gun is simply a way to make them more expensive and possibly less reliable...just what the anti gun extremists want.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this will have zero effect on gun violence. Legal gun owners don't use their weapons to rob and kill people.
> 1. Knowing where weapons are will have no effect other than to facilitate picking them all up once Liberals achieve their goal of disarming the public.
> 2. Licensing gun owners will have zero effect other than placing another government roadblock in the way of exercising a right that "shall not be infringed". People that cannot pass a background check don't buy guns legally now. What will change once all legal owners are licensed?
> 3. A ballistic record of all guns? Really? NININ has about 1.5 million weapons in its data base now. These guns have already been used in a crime and the DB can be used to prosecute actual crimes. Universal ballistic fingerprinting would overwhelm the system with 200 times the data to sift through for no reason other that a back door to the national firearms registry y'all want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A gun owner is not a criminal up until the time he pulls the trigger to kill someone without cause.
> Not all murders come from some bad guy wearing a mask. Most victims know their killer. Being able to trace a bullet at a crime scene to a specific gun is a huge enforcement tool.  Being able to knock on a door and say.....a gun you own was used in a murder...what can you tell us?
Click to expand...



Yes...and using current law enforcement techniques, the people who are not career criminals or sociopaths are easily found by police if they murder someone they know with a gun...current forensic and detective techniques do this everyday without registering guns or gun owners.  My relative is a police detective and I have talked to him about these issues.  There is nothing licensing or registering a gun will add to their ability to find a crimnal.



> Being able to knock on a door and say.....a gun you own was used in a murder...what can you tell us?



"Officer, it was stolen...."  " officer, it was lost."   And there goes any connection......

Of course....right now, when I asked my detective relative, they already ask the perp where he got the gun.....and follow it from there...no need to license anyone or register the gun.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
Click to expand...



And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....

It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
Click to expand...


Cars are not a protected Right.  Guns are.  And history has shown that governments will confiscate guns if they want to....France, Germany, Britain, Australia....any socialist country in fact......especially the ones who want to murder their opponents...all confiscated guns....

And in Europe, they confiscated guns, and then later murdered 12 million innocent people and occupied their countries......with no one to stop them....

Except for Switzerland.....the only country not invaded by the Germans at the start of the war...why?  They had over 400,000 citizens with guns.  Too big a nut to crack compared to the other, soft, disarmed European countries.


And all you had to do was watch the episode of CHIPS, back in the 70s....you report your car stolen.....today...with all he cameras, they can use current forensic techniques and detective techniques to find you ....dittos gun crime.

And with more Americans owning guns....and over 12.8 million Americans carrying guns for protection...our gun murder rate is already going down, not up....so what we are doing now is doing the job already.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a political party out there that would love to confiscate cars, but can't because they don't have the power?
Click to expand...



Yes there is, it is the democrat party....and they would love to force everyone on public transportation....but just like guns, they don't have the political power to do it....


----------



## 2aguy




----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They get "commandeered" into it by law enforcement whenever they need manpower for that endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, law enforcement needs a good rugby match
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point is, dear, that law enforcement must always "win its matches" to ensure the domestic Tranquility of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Provinces, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever; would  you be terribly upset if i  "commandeered" you, for a few seconds?
Click to expand...


My ass is virgin ... and staying that way ...


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
Click to expand...


RW thinks of the Constitution as an ATM machine


----------



## rightwinger

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia


----------



## jon_berzerk

***yawn*** you bait is stinky


----------



## Jarlaxle

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit...the Brady Bill effect was study, the "Assault Weapon Ban" portion of the bill did nothing....considering that all long guns kill fewer people than knives or empty hands and "Assault Weapons" kill only a handful of people if any each year.....it was a dumb law.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
Click to expand...


It has been posted, many times.  You ignore it.



> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.



You cannot prove that it will do so.


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia
Click to expand...


Sure, so can government require us to register to belong to a religion or to speak freely?  Can they charge us fees for protection from illegal search and seizure?  Does the Bill of Rights actually exist at all?  It's really a bill of suggestions, don't you think?  Maybe suggestion is a strong word, maybe it's a Bill of Thoughts, take them for what they are...


----------



## kaz

Jarlaxle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been posted, many times.  You ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot prove that it will do so.
Click to expand...


Don't you like how Wry constantly ignores posts that have been repeatedly presented while referring to a body of posts he claims proves everything he says that doesn't exist at all?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia
Click to expand...


This comment from a member of a party that states it's disenfranchisement to ask people to get an ID to vote in this country?


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> 
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, so can government require us to register to belong to a religion or to speak freely?  Can they charge us fees for protection from illegal search and seizure?  Does the Bill of Rights actually exist at all?  It's really a bill of suggestions, don't you think?  Maybe suggestion is a strong word, maybe it's a Bill of Thoughts, take them for what they are...
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarlaxle

paulitician said:


> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.



OK, then: kill yourself.


----------



## Jarlaxle

2aguy said:


> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.



Describe, in detail and with links to sources, EXACTLY how I could "check" whether my neighbor is forbidden to own a gun.  Be specific.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep guns from criminals...simple plan
> 
> 1. Register all guns......ownership traceability
> 2. License gun owners.....ensure they have been trained and passed background check
> 3. Fingerprint all guns.....any bullet fired from that gun can be traced to the owner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
Click to expand...

No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car


----------



## rightwinger

Ray From Cleveland said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> 
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This comment from a member of a party that states it's disenfranchisement to ask people to get an ID to vote in this country?
Click to expand...


Provide 100% IDs to everyone and I am OK with it


----------



## Jarlaxle

paulitician said:


> Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.



Much easier to make sure any gun I sell is sold to someone who does not KNOW who I am.  First names only, meet at a neutral location, contact only through a throwaway cell phone bought with cash.  Maybe rent a car or van so the guy doesn't know what state I live in.


----------



## Jarlaxle

fanofthepower said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Illinois has licenses for all gun owners called the Firearm Owners Identification CArd.....you submit to a State Police background check and then you get your "license" and you need it to buy guns, ammo and to shoot on a commercial range, as well as to transport guns.
> 
> I have one.  I have never committed a crime.
> 
> And you know what...it has no effect on the shooting gallery that we call the city of Chicago....so....with that actual application also showing how dumb gun licensing is.....why do we need it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
Click to expand...


My uncle is alive because he carries a gun.  I am alive because I had a gun.

Explain, in detail, how my wife's best friend--all 4'5" and 85lbs of her--should protect herself from a 6'2", 230lb attacker.  Be specific. (Her preferred method is a Smith & Wesson Detective Special.)


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
Click to expand...


Probably true.  Do you have a comment on his post though?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> fanofthepower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support those laws. But if you're gonna sell a firearm, i suggest you do your due diligence. If the purchaser turns out to be a Felon, you have to be held accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your car?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted drunk driver?
> 
> Again, do you have to do due dilligence before you sell your computer?  To make sure the guy you are selling it to isn't a convicted child porn guy like Jared, who are banned from ever touching a computer again.
> 
> Are either of those on you?
> 
> Same for guns....the criminal knows he is breaking the law, catch him and arrest him.  If you have an actual criminal gun dealer, knowingly selling to criminals in large quantities...catch him and arrest him....spend your manpower on him, not Joe Citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like i said, you can go on spinning it anyway you like, but you sell a firearm to a Felon, you have to accept responsibility and pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not spinning it...telling the truth.  Guns are legal products and we are not cops.  Making us do the work of cops to sell a legal product is insane.  Catch the felon who buys the gun....they know they can't own it or carry it....you can arrest them already without licensing gun owners...
> 
> And as Illinois shows...licensing does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....because none of the shooters in Chicago....and we have had another bloody weekend, have Firearm Owner Identification CArds...do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from an extension of an inadequate body part ...what useful function does a gun have...is shooting bullets at cans a form of entertainment, an education for a child...if you remove all guns children will stop dying because of the careless actions of a few....agreed, only a few...but children will live ...children who would otherwise die....I am curious.... can you name something other than guns that have no function other than killing....that cause the deaths of good people....every day...not saying such a product does not exist...but, can't think of anything at the moment...cars (function), knives (function), swimming pools (function), bicycles (function)..automatically, you will say 'protection'...self defense..well, if there are no guns...man up and find a way to protect yourself.., pretend you're Monty Clift fighting Ernie Borgnine in From Here to Eternity...have some guts ...or, as most trembling cowards without a gun would do....run......there is risk in life embrace it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My uncle is alive because he carries a gun.  I am alive because I had a gun.
> 
> Explain, in detail, how my wife's best friend--all 4'5" and 85lbs of her--should protect herself from a 6'2", 230lb attacker.  Be specific. (Her preferred method is a Smith & Wesson Detective Special.)
Click to expand...


Before we passed our CCW laws here in Ohio, it was a hot topic for our blogs. 

When questioned, a blogger asked why I was so behind CCW's.  I explained that my mother is elderly and insists on taking walks to the store or church, and having CCW's offer her protection. 

So he wrote back and asked that if we passed the law, would my elderly mother carry a gun with her?  To that I responded "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."  

These anti-gun people don't realize that they too have extra protection against criminals because of those of us that do carry firearms.


----------



## rightwinger

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably true.  Do you have a comment on his post though?
Click to expand...

That was my comment

There is nothing unconstitutional about gun registration. The second amendment encourages it


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing here changes the fact that federal background check laws offer no exception for gun shows.
> This eliminates the possibility of there being a gun show loophole.
> You choose to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
Click to expand...

The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law.
You either do not understand this, or you are lying to yourself.


----------



## M14 Shooter

IsaacNewton said:


> I'd say the simple answer is the same way we keep dynamite from criminals.


Look!  Another IN post utterly devoid of substance.


----------



## rightwinger

M14 Shooter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> My links say it's about PRIVATE SELLERS AT GUNSHOWS and else where. DUH.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law.
> You either do not understand this, or you are lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

Seems like a huge loophole that allows you to sell your gun to a criminal


----------



## 2aguy

Jarlaxle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Describe, in detail and with links to sources, EXACTLY how I could "check" whether my neighbor is forbidden to own a gun.  Be specific.
Click to expand...



You can't.  and since we aren't cops we shouldn't have to......the criminal already knows that he can't own the gun...so if he commits a crime with it or is simply caught with it...arrest him.  i merely pointed out in that post that no law abiding citizen should face a serious crime for selling a legal product...at most, if they knew they were selling to a criminal on a one off sale, they should get fined...no criminal judgment.  any real arms trafficker can already be caught the old fashioned way, with police work.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
Click to expand...



yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.


----------



## 2aguy

Jarlaxle said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Selling one or more guns to a neighbor is not the problem, and shouldn't be the focus.....make it a fine, say....1000 dollars a gun, no misdeneanor and no felony.....to teach him to check next time.  Maybe...I'll have to think about the way the anti gun extremists could exploit that policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Describe, in detail and with links to sources, EXACTLY how I could "check" whether my neighbor is forbidden to own a gun.  Be specific.
Click to expand...



the same way criminals get around background checks at licensed gun owners...straw purchasers or stealing the guns.....would get around any mandated, universal background check.  the anti gun extremists want you to drag the buyer into a gun store to do a background check...increasing the difficulty of selling a legal product......but the criminal could simply send the straw buyer there as well...thus defeating the new universal background check.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law.
> You either do not understand this, or you are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like a huge loophole that allows you to sell your gun to a criminal
Click to expand...



It is a legal product....the criminal who buys the gun can already be arrested without turning regular citizens into cops.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
Click to expand...


Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> 
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, so can government require us to register to belong to a religion or to speak freely?  Can they charge us fees for protection from illegal search and seizure?  Does the Bill of Rights actually exist at all?  It's really a bill of suggestions, don't you think?  Maybe suggestion is a strong word, maybe it's a Bill of Thoughts, take them for what they are...
Click to expand...


We need to be required to register computers and all other electronic devices....since normal citizens aren't criminals until they use their computer for child porn or identity theft.........so all electronics need to be licensed, and all citizens need to pass background checks before they cut electronic devices.......in case they have been convicted of computer related crimes......

and before you lend you electronic devise to anyone...you need to do a background check......

and of course...mandatory training classes for the use of electronic devices to make sure people know that it is illegal to commit computer crimes...

and before you get the electronic devise....you need to be licensed.....just so we know you know how to operate the computer without committing crimes with it..


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
Click to expand...



yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.


----------



## rightwinger

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
Click to expand...

Part of being a citizen
Buy a gun.....register it

Don't whine about how hard it is

Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car


----------



## Jarlaxle

rightwinger said:


> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights



No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> 
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
Click to expand...



Yes...and that is what they told blacks when they tried to vote....

Pay the tax to vote, take the literacy test...it is part of being a citizen....don't whine about how you are poor and can't pay the tax or that you can't pass the literacy test.......

don't whine about it....

and yes, guns are different in that they are a Right, and that history has shown that registration lists are used to confiscate guns....France, Brtiatain, Germany, Australia.....

so no...no registration, no licensing...they are un Constitutional...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> 
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
Click to expand...


However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it. 

Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Jarlaxle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 101 California Street shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sandy Hook Parents Sue Bushmaster: You Sold ‘Weapon of Choice’ for Mass Murderers
> 
> Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
> 
> There is more too the story of the Brady Bill than those partisans put forth and the idiots on the right echo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been posted, many times.  You ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot prove that it will do so.
Click to expand...


No proof has been posted that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad guy from doing something bad.  It's been alleged without evidence and eched by others.

An open mind is all that is required to understand the premise of licensing.  If you had read my posts you would know I've never claimed licensing would be a panacea, it is one method which may reduce gun violence.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
Click to expand...


Gun registration will not infringe on your right, unless of course you're a criminal.


----------



## IsaacNewton

M14 Shooter said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the simple answer is the same way we keep dynamite from criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> Look!  Another IN post utterly devoid of substance.
Click to expand...


Explain how criminals don't have access to C4 and dynamite.

Devoid of substance? You have the depth of a mud puddle.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been posted, many times.  You ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot prove that it will do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No proof has been posted that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad guy from doing something bad.  It's been alleged without evidence and eched by others.
> 
> An open mind is all that is required to understand the premise of licensing.  If you had read my posts you would know I've never claimed licensing would be a panacea, it is one method which may reduce gun violence.
Click to expand...



Here are actual studies...that you simply deny them does not make them non-existent.....

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the  links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

*Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

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

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


*-------------------------------------------*

*Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

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

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take  the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....*


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what none of those do?  Tell us how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  All you're proposing is limiting our ability to defend ourselves. Criminals love these laws, it makes them a lot safer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either stupid, or a damn liar.  I suspect both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you show where any of the links present actual proposals to get guns out of the hands of criminals?  All you can make are empty statements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only assholes and abject fools continue to ask this same stupid question.
> 
> You've proven to be both.
> 
> Assholes and fools continue to post claims that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad thing from happening.  Yet, no credible evidence is ever posted to prove the truth of thus claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been posted, many times.  You ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made a very simple suggestion which you cannot refute, you cannot prove that licensing won't reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should not have them in their possession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot prove that it will do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No proof has been posted that millions of times a year a gun is used by a good guy to stop a bad guy from doing something bad.  It's been alleged without evidence and eched by others.
> 
> An open mind is all that is required to understand the premise of licensing.  If you had read my posts you would know I've never claimed licensing would be a panacea, it is one method which may reduce gun violence.
Click to expand...




> If you had read my posts you would know I've never claimed licensing would be a panacea, it is one method which may reduce gun violence.



We have licensing in Illinois....it doesn't stop one killing in Chicago......you know...where all the shootings in the state happen.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun registration will not infringe on your right, unless of course you're a criminal.
Click to expand...



Yes...it will.  It will cost money....and like the poll taxes the democrats used to deny the right to vote to blacks, any tax or fee on a Right is an infringement of that Right....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun registration will not infringe on your right, unless of course you're a criminal.
Click to expand...


If gun registration actually did something, that's one thing.  But as we know from states that already have registration and more, it doesn't help one bit.  And BTW, my firearms are not registered but the firearms seller must provide the government with a bullet from the gun.  This weekend alone, we had two shootings of teenagers in the city.  Last month, they ran their gun buy-back program.  All failed efforts to control something that can't be controlled.


----------



## 2aguy

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun registration will not infringe on your right, unless of course you're a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If gun registration actually did something, that's one thing.  But as we know from states that already have registration and more, it doesn't help one bit.  And BTW, my firearms are not registered but the firearms seller must provide the government with a bullet from the gun.  This weekend alone, we had two shootings of teenagers in the city.  Last month, they ran their gun buy-back program.  All failed efforts to control something that can't be controlled.
Click to expand...



It is still unConstitutional...it costs money and like a poll tax that democrats used to keep blacks from voting, it would prevent the poor from accessing the Right to bear arms in their defense.  It would probably be against the 5th Amendment against self incrimination...someone needs to challenge that in court....


----------



## MaryL

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.c
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


that


kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.


Guns kill people, too many bad people have them and law abiding folks aren't going to stop that. To be blunt: GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.  Like rats or lead paint or rabid dogs. What do you do ABOUT THEM? Get rid of them, no brainer. Get rid of them, it isn't hard.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

MaryL said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.c
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> that
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns kill people, too many bad people have them and law abiding folks aren't going to stop that. To be blunt: GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.  Like rats or lead paint or rabid dogs. What do you do ABOUT THEM? Get rid of them, no brainer. Get rid of them, it isn't hard.
Click to expand...


So you are against the US Constitution?  

If so, will you complain when somebody wants to strip you of constitutional rights that protect you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

MaryL said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.c
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> that
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns kill people, too many bad people have them and law abiding folks aren't going to stop that. To be blunt: GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.  Like rats or lead paint or rabid dogs. What do you do ABOUT THEM? Get rid of them, no brainer. Get rid of them, it isn't hard.
Click to expand...


More than likely it will never make it to court because it will never transpire.......at least for now. 

They way around that charge is to make it free so that the person registering is not charged directly.  That's how they are getting around the same charge anti-voter ID people are making.


----------



## MaryL

Why is it people that are pro gun threaten to shoot people that don't agree with them? It's kind of why we are frightened of you folks. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## francoHFW

The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.


----------



## NYcarbineer

After 5 thousand posts, did the conservatives post THEIR plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

MaryL said:


> Why is it people that are pro gun threaten to shoot people that don't agree with them? It's kind of why we are frightened of you folks. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.



Who ever threatened to shoot a person that's for gun control?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.



A huge majority of Americans are against the Iran nuclear deal as well.  But I bet you have no problem with how Americans feel about that one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NYcarbineer said:


> After 5 thousand posts, did the conservatives post THEIR plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?



Actually it's been our point all along.  You can't control something like that.  It's like our failed mission to control recreational narcotics.  The laws work on law abiding people, but not those that actually want the drugs.  The people that want those drugs get them regardless of how many laws we pass.


----------



## MaryL

E=" From Cleveland, post: 12357604, member: 55493"]





MaryL said:


> Why is it people that are pro gun threaten to shoot people that don't agree with them? It's kind of why we are frightened of you folks. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.


Really. I can't even begin to count the number of times pro gun folks threaten to SHOOT me because I disagreed with them, if that isn't a anti gun argument I don't know what IS!


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge majority of Americans are against the Iran nuclear deal as well.  But I bet you have no problem with how Americans feel about that one.
Click to expand...

Before tidal wave of Pubcrappe, corporate news cowardice, 2-1 in favor, 84% of US jews for it....Americans' View on Iran Talks? Let's Make a Deal


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge majority of Americans are against the Iran nuclear deal as well.  But I bet you have no problem with how Americans feel about that one.
Click to expand...

 Link to that bs?


----------



## MaryL

It's vicious cycle. We question gun ownership, we are villains. No I want to break that cycle. Nobody needs guns and we need to break that cycle and get on with life.


----------



## francoHFW

Nobody needs a hand gun anyway.


----------



## Slyhunter

francoHFW said:


> Nobody needs a hand gun anyway.


I need a hand gun to protect myself and my family from those who wish to do me harm. Better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it.


----------



## Jarlaxle

francoHFW said:


> Nobody needs a hand gun anyway.



No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is STILL A LIE!


----------



## rightwinger

Jarlaxle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.
Click to expand...


The second amendment supports gun registration


----------



## Jarlaxle

No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge majority of Americans are against the Iran nuclear deal as well.  But I bet you have no problem with how Americans feel about that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that bs?
Click to expand...


August 20, 2015, 03:13 pm
*Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal*
By Jesse Byrnes

Most Americans say Congress should reject the international deal brokered by the Obama administration over Iran's nuclear program, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.

A majority, 56 percent, want lawmakers to reject the deal, up slightly from the 52 percent who voiced that position in the same poll last month. Forty-one percent say Congress should accept the deal.

Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment supports gun registration
Click to expand...


Really?  Where?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

MaryL said:


> It's vicious cycle. We question gun ownership, we are villains. No I want to break that cycle. Nobody needs guns and we need to break that cycle and get on with life.



Well if that's the way you feel, then try this: 

Hang a huge sign on your front porch that says "THIS HOME HAS NO FIREARMS WITHIN."  Get back to us in a couple of weeks and let us know how that turns out for you.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great idea!  Case solved!
> 
> Hey, wait, what if criminals just bought an illegal gun?  Wish I'd thought of that before.  Oh wait, I did, it was in my OP post...
> 
> All this would be easier if criminals just followed the law, wouldn't it, comrade big guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Like all preventive measures, they are not 100% effective.  Seat belts don't save all lives
> 
> However, being able to identify a gun from a bullet found at the scene of a crime will be a huge criminal enforcement tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It already is. Why turn it into a tool to facilitate rounding up all of the legally owned weapons that will never leave a bullet at the scene of a crime unless your agenda is to create a national firearms registry in order to grab them all up at some later date?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More paranoia from gun nuts
> 
> I register my car and have yet to have one confiscated. However, if my car is involved in a hit and run...it is traceable back to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are there paint chips and tire impressions stored in a data base somewhere? More importantly, is there a Constitutional Amendment saying your right to own and drive a car shall not be infringed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the second amendment discouraging gun registration or licensing of gun owners.....consider it to being part of a well regulated militia
Click to expand...

Just what is it about SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED that you don't understand?


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you going to do that when they buy illegal guns?
> 
> You still aren't clicking with the part that criminals don't follow the law, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't solve every crime. You assume all murders happen with untraceable guns.....they don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably true.  Do you have a comment on his post though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was my comment
> 
> There is nothing unconstitutional about gun registration. The second amendment encourages it
Click to expand...

The HELL it does. Forcing me to register my weapon is an infringement.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with background checks as prescribed by federal law.
> How is there a loophole in the federal law?
> 
> 
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law.
> You either do not understand this, or you are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like a huge loophole that allows you to sell your gun to a criminal
Click to expand...

WRONG AGAIN. It is currently against the law to sell a gun to a felon.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge majority of Americans are against the Iran nuclear deal as well.  But I bet you have no problem with how Americans feel about that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that bs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 20, 2015, 03:13 pm
> *Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal*
> By Jesse Byrnes
> 
> Most Americans say Congress should reject the international deal brokered by the Obama administration over Iran's nuclear program, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.
> 
> A majority, 56 percent, want lawmakers to reject the deal, up slightly from the 52 percent who voiced that position in the same poll last month. Forty-one percent say Congress should accept the deal.
> 
> Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal
Click to expand...

 I.E., NOT a huge majority as you said.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Private sellers" duh...
> 
> 
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law.
> You either do not understand this, or you are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like a huge loophole that allows you to sell your gun to a criminal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG AGAIN. It is currently against the law to sell a gun to a felon.
Click to expand...

 But private sellers don't have to worry.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge majority of Americans are against the Iran nuclear deal as well.  But I bet you have no problem with how Americans feel about that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to that bs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> August 20, 2015, 03:13 pm
> *Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal*
> By Jesse Byrnes
> 
> Most Americans say Congress should reject the international deal brokered by the Obama administration over Iran's nuclear program, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.
> 
> A majority, 56 percent, want lawmakers to reject the deal, up slightly from the 52 percent who voiced that position in the same poll last month. Forty-one percent say Congress should accept the deal.
> 
> Poll: Majority want Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I.E., NOT a huge majority as you said.
Click to expand...

56 to 41 (15% margin) is pretty damned significant. 7 years ago, 7.2%% was an "overwhelming mandate" according to Liberals.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the federal laws regarding background checks.
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law, as the fact that you can do so in no way allows you to get around the federal law - and it CERTAINLY does not have anything specifically to do with gun shows.
> You are utterly and completely ignorant of the issue here; this derives from the fact that you only possess the ability to parrot others.
> 
> 
> 
> "Private sellers" , AT GUNSHOWS, DINGBAT!!!! LOOPHOLE!!! Ay caramba....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you, as an individual, can buy/sell from/to another individual w/o running a background check is not a :"loophole" in the federal law.
> You either do not understand this, or you are lying to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like a huge loophole that allows you to sell your gun to a criminal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG AGAIN. It is currently against the law to sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But private sellers don't have to worry.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. If I knowingly sell a weapon to you, an obvious felon, I have committed a felony.


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.c
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> that
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns kill people, too many bad people have them and law abiding folks aren't going to stop that. To be blunt: GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.  Like rats or lead paint or rabid dogs. What do you do ABOUT THEM? Get rid of them, no brainer. Get rid of them, it isn't hard.
Click to expand...


Um... if it isn't that hard, why didn't you mention how you accomplish the task...


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> Why is it people that are pro gun threaten to shoot people that don't agree with them? It's kind of why we are frightened of you folks. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.



Yes, when they threaten me and my family, my issue is I "don't agree with them."  While it's true, it's not a value added insight.

All our gun laws do is disarm honest citizens, they do nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals.  You got anything but your magic gun disappearing wand to solve that?


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the killer killed someone they knew, current forensic and detective techniques get the job done.  Just watch any of the documentary shows on police and forensic work.  It doesn't take registering all non criminals or licensing all non criminals to find the few people who are actually guilty of a crime....
> 
> It would also be unConstitutional...since you are essentially violating the "innocent until proven guilty" by assuming everyone is guilty eventually so we might as well keep an eye on everyone.....
> 
> 
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
Click to expand...


You are lying.  Well, according to you, you are.  You keep telling me not answering questions means you are lying.

So for like the 40th time, you OK with registering, getting government approval and paying fees for the rest of your Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?

And stop whining when I won't answer your questions, comrade big guy.  This is why, you never answer questions


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> It's vicious cycle. We question gun ownership, we are villains. No I want to break that cycle. Nobody needs guns and we need to break that cycle and get on with life.



Right, leave guns to the criminals, we are so much better off.  

So my dear, a question.  Why do mass shooters keep going to gun free zones?  Does that not make you wonder about the wisdom of making everywhere a gun free zone?  Do you question it at all?


----------



## kaz

Ray From Cleveland said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No bigger an inconvenience than me registering my car
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
Click to expand...


We also ceded the power to create roads, and with that comes regulating their use.

The Bill of Rights says we specifically we withheld the right to take our guns.

They are just fundamentally different


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes it is.  Guns are a Right, cars are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun registration will not infringe on your right, unless of course you're a criminal.
Click to expand...


AGAIN, you OK with registering for all your Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?

And registration does nothing for my OP question, it keeps guns out of the hands of no one except law abiding citizens.  Think about it


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> E=" From Cleveland, post: 12357604, member: 55493"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people that are pro gun threaten to shoot people that don't agree with them? It's kind of why we are frightened of you folks. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> Really. I can't even begin to count the number of times pro gun folks threaten to SHOOT me because I disagreed with them, if that isn't a anti gun argument I don't know what IS!
Click to expand...


you are full of shit, they do not


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment supports gun registration
Click to expand...


Right, like the first amendment supports government regulating speech, right, comrade big guy?


----------



## 2aguy

MaryL said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.c
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> that
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns kill people, too many bad people have them and law abiding folks aren't going to stop that. To be blunt: GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.  Like rats or lead paint or rabid dogs. What do you do ABOUT THEM? Get rid of them, no brainer. Get rid of them, it isn't hard.
Click to expand...



It obviously requires a brain since your "solution" is a "no brainer."  The solution is locking up violent criminals who use guns.  Instead of letting them out in under 3 years, you need to lock them up for 15-20.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.




There is no gun show loophole.  And there is no private sale loophole.  It is a legal product and we are not cops.   You want to require any sale, whatsoever, to undergo a criminal background check, even between family members, friends and for loaning weapons as well as sales.  This does not impact criminals or mass shooters in any way.  

Name one mass shooter "universal" background checks would have stopped?  Please, we will wait quietly for your list.   And gang members currently do not under go Federal, mandatory background checks for gun purchases….and 99% of their guns come through people who can pass current mandatory federal background checks or they steal them…..and future universal background checks will be bypassed the same way.

Are you stupid, or simply clueless?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> After 5 thousand posts, did the conservatives post THEIR plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?




Repeatedly….

1) if you catch a criminal using a gun or a standard capacity magazine to commit a crime lock them up for 10-15 years minimum.

2) if you catch a felon using a gun or standard capacity magazine, owning a gun or standard capacity magazine, arrest them and put them in prison for 10-15 years.

3) Send police into gun shows, under cover to buy and sell guns to catch criminals who cannot own guns as they try to buy guns.


These three items cover almost all criminal behavior with guns of actual criminals…..not one law abiding citizen is targeted with these gun control measures.

All of your measures target normal, law abiding citizens and do nothing to target criminals or mass shooters.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 5 thousand posts, did the conservatives post THEIR plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly….
> 
> 1) if you catch a criminal using a gun or a standard capacity magazine to commit a crime lock them up for 10-15 years minimum.
> 
> 2) if you catch a felon using a gun or standard capacity magazine, owning a gun or standard capacity magazine, arrest them and put them in prison for 10-15 years.
> 
> 3) Send police into gun shows, under cover to buy and sell guns to catch criminals who cannot own guns as they try to buy guns.
> 
> 
> These three items cover almost all criminal behavior with guns of actual criminals…..not one law abiding citizen is targeted with these gun control measures.
> 
> All of your measures target normal, law abiding citizens and do nothing to target criminals or mass shooters.
Click to expand...


And individuals who sell guns to felons through the loopholes?  What about those people?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes it does...it costs money...to process the paperwork....and as we found out when the democrats used poll taxes to deny blacks their right to vote...taxes and fees used to deny access to a right are unconstitutional......and on top of that...I think it also violates the 5th Amendment...the innocent until proven guilty concept since the whole purpose of licensing gun owners assumes they are a criminal......and need to be monitored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Part of being a citizen
> Buy a gun.....register it
> 
> Don't whine about how hard it is
> 
> Nobody is accusing you of a crime any more than they accuse you of a crime when you register your car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However registering a car accomplishes several things:  First and most important is identification in the event your car is stolen.  It helps police identify you and your car.  Registration is proof that you are the legitimate owner of the car in the event you wish to sell it.
> 
> Gun registration doesn't accomplish a thing.  It won't prevent one person who wants a gun from getting one, and that's the only reason to have your gun registered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun registration will not infringe on your right, unless of course you're a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you OK with registering for all your Constitutional rights?  Or just that one?
> 
> And registration does nothing for my OP question, it keeps guns out of the hands of no one except law abiding citizens.  Think about it
Click to expand...


I have thought about it. 

There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.

I've tried, your dishonesty is apparent in everyone of your posts.  You have never posted a concise, creditable rebuttal and never will.   This too is apparent,  the question asked in the OP is a stupid one.

I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals; you've stated nothing can be done to reduce the proliferation of guns, and some of your crazy supporters believe more guns in the hands of more people is the solution.

I can't fix stupidity.  I can only appeal to those with common sense and an open mind.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> An open mind is all that is required to understand the premise of licensing.


Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Your silence here speaks volumes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Gun registration will not infringe on your right


Another statement you know you cannot soundly support.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole


No such loophole exists.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MaryL said:


> E=" From Cleveland, post: 12357604, member: 55493"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people that are pro gun threaten to shoot people that don't agree with them? It's kind of why we are frightened of you folks. Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> Really. I can't even begin to count the number of times pro gun folks threaten to SHOOT me because I disagreed with them,
Click to expand...

I bet that you cannot cite a single example of this happening on USMB.
Not one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

MaryL said:


> ...Nobody needs guns...



Prove this to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.


None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.


----------



## rightwinger

Ray From Cleveland said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment supports gun registration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where?
Click to expand...

 
A well regulated militia being necessary for a security of a free state...

How can we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what type of guns they have?



.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 5 thousand posts, did the conservatives post THEIR plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly….
> 
> 1) if you catch a criminal using a gun or a standard capacity magazine to commit a crime lock them up for 10-15 years minimum.
> 
> 2) if you catch a felon using a gun or standard capacity magazine, owning a gun or standard capacity magazine, arrest them and put them in prison for 10-15 years.
> 
> 3) Send police into gun shows, under cover to buy and sell guns to catch criminals who cannot own guns as they try to buy guns.
> 
> 
> These three items cover almost all criminal behavior with guns of actual criminals…..not one law abiding citizen is targeted with these gun control measures.
> 
> All of your measures target normal, law abiding citizens and do nothing to target criminals or mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And individuals who sell guns to felons through the loopholes?  What about those people?
Click to expand...



If they are actual gun traffickers, arrest them.  If they are Joe or Jane citizen who sells one gun and doesn't do a background check…..maybe a fine.  You are not going to stop criminals from getting guns by forcing Joe and Jane citizen to do background checks on Cousing Earl…….criminals already get past mandated federal background checks at licensed gun stores by having someone who can pass a background check buy the gun…..or they steal the guns from homes, gun stores or cars (where gun owners have to leave their guns whenever they have to enter a gun free zone).  So if you pass "universal" background checks, they will be bypassed the same way current background checks are bypassed.

Can you name one mass shooter that would have been stopped  by a "universal" background check?   We currently have I.D. cards for gun owners in the state of Illinois, and a permit process for concealed carry that requires fingerprints and 16 hours of training.  Has that stopped the gang shootings in Chicago?  Are the criminals in Chicago going through background checks, taking 16 hours of training?

The anti gun people want to treat guns differently than any other tool used in crime.  You do not want background checks for computer purchases right? Even though felons convicted of child sex crimes and Identity theft can no longer use computers…right?   And you don't require Joe and Jane Citizen get licensed to use a computer or register their electronic devices on the chance they may use them to commit crimes or sell them to criminals…right?

Or with cars?  You don't require a background check on drivers to make sure they don't have a D.U.I. right?  And you force people to get a license for driving….does that stop any drunk driver?

You want to try to stop crimes with guns before they happen…and you can't do that….

I notice none of the measures suggested start off with….we need to license guns for criminals…….we need to register the guns of criminals……we need to limit the magazine capacity for criminals……because you guys know that criminals won't submit to any of those things….

But…..law abiding citizens will.

You guys focus on the very people who aren't committing crimes.  And ignore the actual criminals who use guns to commit crimes.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 5 thousand posts, did the conservatives post THEIR plan for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly….
> 
> 1) if you catch a criminal using a gun or a standard capacity magazine to commit a crime lock them up for 10-15 years minimum.
> 
> 2) if you catch a felon using a gun or standard capacity magazine, owning a gun or standard capacity magazine, arrest them and put them in prison for 10-15 years.
> 
> 3) Send police into gun shows, under cover to buy and sell guns to catch criminals who cannot own guns as they try to buy guns.
> 
> 
> These three items cover almost all criminal behavior with guns of actual criminals…..not one law abiding citizen is targeted with these gun control measures.
> 
> All of your measures target normal, law abiding citizens and do nothing to target criminals or mass shooters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And individuals who sell guns to felons through the loopholes?  What about those people?
Click to expand...



And there is no loophole….felons cannot buy guns from gun stores, private sellers or anyone else.  if they are caught with a gun they can be arrested….right now, under current gun laws.


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment supports gun registration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary for a security of a free state...
> 
> How can we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what type of guns they have?
Click to expand...

Weapons qualification.


----------



## paulitician

Jarlaxle said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then: kill yourself.
Click to expand...


I don't hide in trees, dressed in camo head to toe, waiting for a poor defenseless animal to walk by so i can brutally murder it. That's all you. Y'all are sick fucks. The world really would be a better place if we had more deers, and less of you camo-wearing human wastes.


----------



## paulitician

Jarlaxle said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much easier to make sure any gun I sell is sold to someone who does not KNOW who I am.  First names only, meet at a neutral location, contact only through a throwaway cell phone bought with cash.  Maybe rent a car or van so the guy doesn't know what state I live in.
Click to expand...


Selling guns is about to become an even riskier business. The loopholes are being closed. Be very careful who you sell firearms to. You will be held accountable.


----------



## paulitician

paulitician said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then: kill yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hide in trees, dressed in camo head to toe, waiting for a poor defenseless animal to walk by so i can brutally murder it. That's all you. Y'all are sick fucks. The world really would be a better place if we had more deers, and less of you camo-wearing human wastes.
Click to expand...


I choose the deers. The world will be better off. You dipshits serve no purpose. May an enormous antler find your anal cavity very soon.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing about registration interferes with your gun rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate that, it is still a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment supports gun registration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary for a security of a free state...
> 
> How can we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what type of guns they have?
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Read Heller.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
> The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
> That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.
Click to expand...


How would you know what a thinking person might consider?  

Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?  Never.  Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
.  
And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> How would you know what a thinking person might consider?


I look at what you say/do/propose and take the opposite,.


> Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?  Never.


Well then  -- why enact your proposals?


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
> The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
> That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know what a thinking person might consider?
> 
> Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?  Never.  Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
> .
> And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).
Click to expand...

"Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?"

No. You haven't actually made that claim, but the title of the thread is "keeping guns from criminals Liberals, what is your plan?
You have proposed a "plan". A logical person would assume you have responded to the question posed in the OP.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals





What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are


----------



## Slyhunter

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are
Click to expand...

No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.


----------



## danielpalos

having to muster for posse duty or militia duty could solve many problems regarding guns, gun lovers, gun violence, and the domestic Tranquility and security of our free States.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
> The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
> That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know what a thinking person might consider?
> 
> Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?  Never.  Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
> .
> And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?"
> 
> No. You haven't actually made that claim, but the title of the thread is "keeping guns from criminals Liberals, what is your plan?
> You have proposed a "plan". A logical person would assume you have responded to the question posed in the OP.
Click to expand...


A logical person would wonder why such a stupid question was posed.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Slyhunter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
Click to expand...


No speed limit will keep people from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.

So why do we have laws?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
Click to expand...

To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Click to expand...


Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?

Let me dumb it down for you:

http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ss5/b/absofgovl.cfm

For others, most who have not taken History of Western Philosophy:

SparkNotes: The Republic: Book I


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made the statement that gun control methods can keep guns out of the hands of criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a dumb ass, so after all the arguing, you concede my OP post it true?  LOL, what a tool you are
> 
> 
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Click to expand...


Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?


----------



## Slyhunter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Click to expand...

licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

"Limits"
I used the word "limits".
Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns


> Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?


Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.

Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## M14 Shooter

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement.
Click to expand...

Requiring a license is a requirement that you ask the state for permission to exercise a right.
The state cannot constitutionally do this.


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains 80% of the country are for ending the private seller/gun show loophole, 90% before the Pub/NRA / GUN CORPORATION got to work on dupes with BS and misinformation. It would help end nutter massacres immediately and the gang banger problem over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no gun show loophole.  And there is no private sale loophole.  It is a legal product and we are not cops.   You want to require any sale, whatsoever, to undergo a criminal background check, even between family members, friends and for loaning weapons as well as sales.  This does not impact criminals or mass shooters in any way.
> 
> Name one mass shooter "universal" background checks would have stopped?  Please, we will wait quietly for your list.   And gang members currently do not under go Federal, mandatory background checks for gun purchases….and 99% of their guns come through people who can pass current mandatory federal background checks or they steal them…..and future universal background checks will be bypassed the same way.
> 
> Are you stupid, or simply clueless?
Click to expand...

 BS.

Half the nutjobs wouldn't go through a check.

Actually, most of gang bangers NEW and advanced weaponry comes from stupid loophole states.

Brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## francoHFW

M14 Shooter said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nobody needs guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this to be true.
Click to expand...

 Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Click to expand...



Because they both cost money to do....and when the democrats imposed "Poll Taxes" on blacks when they went to vote...that was determined to be unConstitutional.....so licensing and registration would be unconstitutional, since gun ownership is a right.  

Also....licensing and registration is not needed.  They do nothing to stop or solve crimes with guns.

You still have failed to show how licensing works to do what you say you want it to do....


----------



## 2aguy

There is no need to license anyone.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
Click to expand...


Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.

If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.

I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.

What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Click to expand...



How does a license work?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Click to expand...



They can easily ban specific categories of weapons, then move on item by item.


----------



## 2aguy

So...tell me....does requiring a license to drive prevent people from driving drunk?

And before I start, driving is not the same as gun ownership.  Gun ownership is a Right, not a priveledge.

So....you get a license and you drive drunk....they pull your license....if you drive drunk again you go to jail again.

Right now, that is how it works without having to get a license for a gun.  If you commit a crime with a gun...you lose the right to own guns.

Done.  No need to license anyone, it is already how we handle crime with guns.  What you guys want is an extra, super dooper layer of paperwork....and it isn't needed, and does nothing when you implement it.


----------



## rightwinger

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
Click to expand...

Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns


----------



## 2aguy

rightwinger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns
Click to expand...



Nope.....if it costs money to do either one then it is no different than a Poll Tax for voting and it is unConstitutional.  You can't charge someone for the ability to exercise a Right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Click to expand...


The better question is, what's right with it?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
Click to expand...


Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one.  I thought that was clear.  If  you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.

If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license.  Isn't that obvious?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms*
Source: *Reuters*

Researchers analyzed data on teen gun possession from a survey of U.S. high school students in 38 states and then examined how aggressively each of the states regulated firearm use with policies such as background checks before sales, minimum ages for purchase, bans on military-style assault weapons and limitations on use in public places. 

In states with stricter gun laws, 5.7 percent of students surveyed said they had carried a gun in the past month, compared with 7.3 percent of their peers in states with more permissive gun laws. Adolescents were more likely to carry guns if adults in their home owned firearms, the study also found. 

"The governments and adults in other developed countries have made it difficult for youth to access handguns, however, our study showed that about a quarter of U.S. adolescents reported easy access to a gun in their home," study co-author Ziming Xuan, a public health researcher at Boston University, said by email. 

Approximately 15,000 teenagers aged 12 to 19 die in the U.S. each year and the top three causes are unintentional injuries, homicides and suicides, Xuan and co-author David Hemenway of Harvard University report in JAMA Pediatrics. Most of the homicides and almost half of the suicides involve guns.

Read more: Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one.  I thought that was clear.  If  you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.
> 
> If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license.  Isn't that obvious?
Click to expand...



You realize that the current criminal shooting up democrat cities.....can't own guns right now....no license is needed to arrest them...now.  

If you license law abiding people...they will sell to other people with licenses....and if they are a straw purchaser...like right now....they will still sell guns to criminals...like they do right now even though it is illegal right now to do that.....

What about that do you not fucking get............

Licensing is stupid, and does nothing to stop criminals, who can't own guns right now....from getting or using guns.


Mass Shooters..........just like all the other ones....they get a license, pass all the background checks, get 10 round magazines, only buy one gun a month.....

And then they go kill people....

Licensing is not needed to allow that to happen right now......


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms*
> Source: *Reuters*
> 
> Researchers analyzed data on teen gun possession from a survey of U.S. high school students in 38 states and then examined how aggressively each of the states regulated firearm use with policies such as background checks before sales, minimum ages for purchase, bans on military-style assault weapons and limitations on use in public places.
> 
> In states with stricter gun laws, 5.7 percent of students surveyed said they had carried a gun in the past month, compared with 7.3 percent of their peers in states with more permissive gun laws. Adolescents were more likely to carry guns if adults in their home owned firearms, the study also found.
> 
> "The governments and adults in other developed countries have made it difficult for youth to access handguns, however, our study showed that about a quarter of U.S. adolescents reported easy access to a gun in their home," study co-author Ziming Xuan, a public health researcher at Boston University, said by email.
> 
> Approximately 15,000 teenagers aged 12 to 19 die in the U.S. each year and the top three causes are unintentional injuries, homicides and suicides, Xuan and co-author David Hemenway of Harvard University report in JAMA Pediatrics. Most of the homicides and almost half of the suicides involve guns.
> 
> Read more: Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms




See...you used hemenway....the hack, and biased anit gunner.......

Teen agers in Japan kill themselves at a higher rate than our teenagers...and they have 0 access to guns there.....so again....failure.....

And how many accidental gun deaths of kids 14 and under in 2013......69.    Deaths due to homicide...under 100.  Notice....they don't say how many teens used guns for suicide...but that 15,000 number sure looks big, doesn't it.

This is another crap, anti gun study from hemenway.....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*sure bro we do not have a gun problem...its perfectly normal to have mass gun killings once a week.....*


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms*
> Source: *Reuters*
> 
> Researchers analyzed data on teen gun possession from a survey of U.S. high school students in 38 states and then examined how aggressively each of the states regulated firearm use with policies such as background checks before sales, minimum ages for purchase, bans on military-style assault weapons and limitations on use in public places.
> 
> In states with stricter gun laws, 5.7 percent of students surveyed said they had carried a gun in the past month, compared with 7.3 percent of their peers in states with more permissive gun laws. Adolescents were more likely to carry guns if adults in their home owned firearms, the study also found.
> 
> "The governments and adults in other developed countries have made it difficult for youth to access handguns, however, our study showed that about a quarter of U.S. adolescents reported easy access to a gun in their home," study co-author Ziming Xuan, a public health researcher at Boston University, said by email.
> 
> Approximately 15,000 teenagers aged 12 to 19 die in the U.S. each year and the top three causes are unintentional injuries, homicides and suicides, Xuan and co-author David Hemenway of Harvard University report in JAMA Pediatrics. Most of the homicides and almost half of the suicides involve guns.
> 
> Read more: Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms




I post this so I can get to the CDC table....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Here are the stats on some common types of death....it would be better to start a crusade to teach people how to walk upright...and save them from falling deaths...you would save more lives.....

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

guns, drowning and poisoning....

If you cared about people....you would  push to ban the following...


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......*35,369*

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013..*.29,001*

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...*30,208*
Accidental drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*

*Accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013....*

Under 1 year old: 3

1-4 years old: 27

5-14 years old: 39
*Total: 69  ( in a country of 320 million people)*


2012...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

Then by year accidental gun deaths going down according to CDC final statistics table 10 from 2010-2013...

*2010...606
2011...591
2012...548
2013...505*
So...accidental gun deaths have been coming down as more people own and carry guns for self defense....now 12.8 million people actually carry guns for self defense......on their person, and the accidental gun death rate is going down, not up....


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *sure bro we do not have a gun problem...its perfectly normal to have mass gun killings once a week.....*




Prove that...a link would be nice....let me guess....Mother Jones....the screwed up FBI report...


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms*
> Source: *Reuters*
> 
> Researchers analyzed data on teen gun possession from a survey of U.S. high school students in 38 states and then examined how aggressively each of the states regulated firearm use with policies such as background checks before sales, minimum ages for purchase, bans on military-style assault weapons and limitations on use in public places.
> 
> In states with stricter gun laws, 5.7 percent of students surveyed said they had carried a gun in the past month, compared with 7.3 percent of their peers in states with more permissive gun laws. Adolescents were more likely to carry guns if adults in their home owned firearms, the study also found.
> 
> "The governments and adults in other developed countries have made it difficult for youth to access handguns, however, our study showed that about a quarter of U.S. adolescents reported easy access to a gun in their home," study co-author Ziming Xuan, a public health researcher at Boston University, said by email.
> 
> Approximately 15,000 teenagers aged 12 to 19 die in the U.S. each year and the top three causes are unintentional injuries, homicides and suicides, Xuan and co-author David Hemenway of Harvard University report in JAMA Pediatrics. Most of the homicides and almost half of the suicides involve guns.
> 
> Read more: Stricter State Gun Laws Tied To Fewer U.S. Teens With Firearms




Sooo...from CDC table 10 from 2013.......

suicide by gun 14 and under.....138

Suicide by gun 15-25 (nice age range on this one)  2,210

So....out of a country of 320 million people....sucide is about 138 for actual kids.....since we can't break down the 15-25 age range...

And in Japan...much, much higher and all without guns....

And of course the suicide rate without guns in this country is up 19%....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*It is perfectly normal to have movie theater shootings , shootings at schools shooting at malls...people shooting up mass numbers of people is Normal only crazy libruls think other wise       * 

*Data Show Mass Shootings Increasing in Frequency ...*


do not be concerned the more shootings the more Freedom


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *It is perfectly normal to have movie theater shootings , shootings at schools shooting at malls...people shooting up mass numbers of people is Normal only crazy libruls think other wise       *
> 
> *Data Show Mass Shootings Increasing in Frequency ...*
> 
> 
> do not be concerned the more shootings the more Freedom




Sorry.....bad study......they don't give the details but you can bet they add things that shouldn't be added.....

Mass shootings are not on the increase...actual studies show this...


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *It is perfectly normal to have movie theater shootings , shootings at schools shooting at malls...people shooting up mass numbers of people is Normal only crazy libruls think other wise       *
> 
> *Data Show Mass Shootings Increasing in Frequency ...*
> 
> 
> do not be concerned the more shootings the more Freedom




And here is a study showing they aren't....

Congressional Research Service Releases Study of Mass Shootings

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has just released a report on mass shootings, drawing on two large chunks of data. The first is the FBI's series of supplemental homicide reports from 1999 to 2013, as buttressed by various scholars who have done their best to fill the gaps and fix the errors in the police statistics. The second is a dataset assembled by Grant Duwe, a criminologist at the Minnesota Department of Corrections and the author of _Mass Murder in the United States: A History_. Duwe—who tells me he thinks the CRS "did a really good job"—looks specifically at mass public shootings, and his data go all the way back to 1970. (We'll get to the distinction between "mass shootings" and "mass public shootings" in a moment.)

**************

Those are raw totals, without taking population growth into account. If you look at the number of victims per capita, the average has gone up a little from 1970 to today *but the numbers are so small that the fluctuations are essentially statistical noise. "Basically, there is no rise," says Fox, the Northeastern criminologist. "There are some years that are bad, some that are not so bad."*


----------



## Slyhunter

francoHFW said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nobody needs guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
Click to expand...

It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.


----------



## Slyhunter

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Click to expand...

It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *It is perfectly normal to have movie theater shootings , shootings at schools shooting at malls...people shooting up mass numbers of people is Normal only crazy libruls think other wise       *
> 
> *Data Show Mass Shootings Increasing in Frequency ...*
> 
> 
> do not be concerned the more shootings the more Freedom




Notice....in your link...it states obama has lowered the number of people killed that makes a shooting qualify...I wonder why he did that.....perhaps to increase the numbers...

Here is another source...Mother Jones.....not a right wing, gun source....on all mass shootings..by year.....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014.....   9
2013.....   36
2012.....  72
2011.....  19


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 12.8 million.


----------



## Slyhunter

rightwinger said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns
Click to expand...

All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.


----------



## Slyhunter

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one.  I thought that was clear.  If  you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.
> 
> If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license.  Isn't that obvious?
Click to expand...

It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Nobody needs a hand gun


Prove this to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

"Limits"
I used the word "limits".
Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns


> Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?


Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.

Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Slyhunter

require a License to speak, to preach, or to inform.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.
Click to expand...


Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limits"
> I used the word "limits".
> Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.
> 
> Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Well, I suppose I'm willing to agree we disagree.  Too bad you're not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Thought I would share some local news from here in Cleveland.  Since it fits the topic, I thought some might be interested:

*I-Team: gun arrest doesn’t always mean jail time*

POSTED 6:40 PM, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015, BY ED GALLEK, UPDATED AT 07:06PM, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015

_CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH - The FOX 8 I-TEAM has found getting busted with a gun often does not mean you will get locked up for punishment.

Our investigation has found many convicts facing gun charges get probation.

The I-TEAM reviewed 90 cases in Cuyahoga County from 2014. We specifically looked at cases with the most serious charge being for a concealed weapon or having a weapon as a felon or improper handling of a gun. We did not look at cases involving a gun used to rob or shoot someone.

In the cases we checked, about half of those facing charges got probation. Only about a third got locked up, and some only got time served for a few days spent in jail while under investigation.

The I-TEAM also found some of the people getting probation for gun charges have been busted for trouble on your streets before. Or,  others ended up wanted by authorities after getting probation for a gun.

The Cleveland Police Union President says officers get frustrated. Loomis said, “Yeah, we got a gun off the street…but is that the only goal here? They can easily go get another one.”

Judge Nancy Russo points out prosecutors often make deals with suspects and that limits what judges can do at sentencing. Russo said, “Most of these cases come in as plea bargains. So if the case comes in at one charge, but the prosecutor decides to plea bargain, at that time the judge must sentence only on what the plea bargain is.”

In fact, the I-TEAM has noticed many of these cases involved plea bargains or reduced gun charges.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office points out that no one charged in these cases gets a gun back.

We’ve learned county prosecutors are reviewing how these cases move through court.

I-Team: gun arrest doesn't always mean jail time_


----------



## Wry Catcher

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one.  I thought that was clear.  If  you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.
> 
> If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license.  Isn't that obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.
Click to expand...


So you believe.  Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon.  

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Slyhunter

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?
Click to expand...

Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?


----------



## Jarlaxle

paulitician said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then: kill yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hide in trees, dressed in camo head to toe, waiting for a poor defenseless animal to walk by so i can brutally murder it. That's all you. Y'all are sick fucks. The world really would be a better place if we had more deers, and less of you camo-wearing human wastes.
Click to expand...


I have never hunted in my life and have no interest in hunting.  Would you like to jam your OTHER foot in your mouth now?


----------



## Jarlaxle

paulitician said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much easier to make sure any gun I sell is sold to someone who does not KNOW who I am.  First names only, meet at a neutral location, contact only through a throwaway cell phone bought with cash.  Maybe rent a car or van so the guy doesn't know what state I live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selling guns is about to become an even riskier business. The loopholes are being closed.
Click to expand...


Assumes facts not in evidence. (In other words: you are pulling the "facts" out of your sphincter.)



> Be very careful who you sell firearms to. You will be held accountable.



Did you not read the post you quoted, then?


----------



## Jarlaxle

paulitician said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> After observing the dumb camo-wearing loons for years, i've come to the conclusion that there should be more deer and less humans. Humans are bad. Deer are good. The World really would be a better place if there were more deer and much less camo-wearing human shitheads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then: kill yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hide in trees, dressed in camo head to toe, waiting for a poor defenseless animal to walk by so i can brutally murder it. That's all you. Y'all are sick fucks. The world really would be a better place if we had more deers, and less of you camo-wearing human wastes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I choose the deers. The world will be better off. You dipshits serve no purpose. May an enormous antler find your anal cavity very soon.
Click to expand...


Talking to yourself is evidence of mental illness.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Slyhunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> 
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?
Click to expand...


Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza?   If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one.  I thought that was clear.  If  you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.
> 
> If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license.  Isn't that obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe.  Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon.
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf
> 
> Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


No, but I could have...if I had started the process today, I could have had it by-at the latest-Thursday.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Wry Catcher said:


> Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza?   If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?



I believe all would have and at least one of them (Roof) DID.


----------



## francoHFW

Slyhunter said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nobody needs guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
Click to expand...

 WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol


----------



## francoHFW

Slyhunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.
Click to expand...

 If they're in a militia, you're right.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
> The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
> That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know what a thinking person might consider?
> 
> Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?  Never.  Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
> .
> And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?"
> 
> No. You haven't actually made that claim, but the title of the thread is "keeping guns from criminals Liberals, what is your plan?
> You have proposed a "plan". A logical person would assume you have responded to the question posed in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A logical person would wonder why such a stupid question was posed.
Click to expand...

No sir. A logical person would have responded exactly as the post above yours did. You have conceded that new laws won't keep criminals from acquiring guns. You have danced around for days and avoided logic while calling others stupid.

You're a funny dude. I bet people laugh at you all the time.

You've got nothing and you're arrogant about it. Everyone else here can see right through you.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nobody needs guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
Click to expand...

No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they're in a militia, you're right.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read District of Columbia vs. Heller.


----------



## Ernie S.

Jarlaxle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> 
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Licensing does mean you can't buy or sell a gun without one.  I thought that was clear.  If  you own a gun it does prevent you from selling it or buying one without a license.
> 
> If you own a gun now, it would be unconstitutional to charge you with having a gun and no license.  Isn't that obvious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would also be unconstitutional to prevent them from buying a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe.  Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon.
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf
> 
> Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but I could have...if I had started the process today, I could have had it by-at the latest-Thursday.
Click to expand...

Same here. I can make my purchase about 1 mile from my house, but would have to drive about 30 miles north to get the signature of the County Sheriff for the transfer stamp. Ma Deuce with 1,000 rounds belted) is a bit dear.... $12 K.


----------



## jon_berzerk

there is a legal way around it 

just saying


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sense to my detailing how any idea to limit the proliferation of guns into the hands of criminals which you would ever consider.
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you want to do will prevent criminals from getting guns.
> The things you want to do only infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.
> That being the case, there's no reason any thinking person would consider them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know what a thinking person might consider?
> 
> Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?  Never.  Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "panacea" or understand the meaning of mitigate
> .
> And if you do know the meaning of both words, than you are a liar (I don't discount what I consider true, that you are ignorant and idiotic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Have I ever posted anything to suggest the ideas I offered would prevent criminals from getting guns?"
> 
> No. You haven't actually made that claim, but the title of the thread is "keeping guns from criminals Liberals, what is your plan?
> You have proposed a "plan". A logical person would assume you have responded to the question posed in the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A logical person would wonder why such a stupid question was posed.
Click to expand...


How you keep guns out of the hands of criminals is a "stupid question?"


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
Click to expand...


What's wrong with letting States decide if they want to license free speech?

And government knowing who's armed is itself a threat


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> There is no need to license anyone.



Yes, the people we want to know who is armed and the rest achieve nothing.

This is just about government control, that's why the leftists like wry love it.  They don't need to map registration to any positive outcome, they just want government to know just cause, that is an end to them.  none of them have actually mapped registration to a reduction in gun crimes, there is a reason for that...


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No law you can enact and actually enforce would keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Look at our accomplishments of keeping drugs out of the hands of users. They always find a way.
> 
> 
> 
> No speed limit will keep criminals from speeding; no license will keep people from driving, and no law will keep people for committing robberies, burglaries, rapes, larceny or spitting on the sidewalk.
> So why have laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
Click to expand...


Why won't you answer the question I ask you repeatedly, you know, since you have intellectual integrity and all (lol).

Can we license and register and charge a fee for other Constitutional rights?  or just that one?  I anticipate you ignoring the question ... again ... it blows a big gaping hole in your argument ...


----------



## paulitician

Jarlaxle said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Apples & Oranges. My advice would be to avoid selling guns to neighbors and acquaintances. Unless you do the proper due diligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much easier to make sure any gun I sell is sold to someone who does not KNOW who I am.  First names only, meet at a neutral location, contact only through a throwaway cell phone bought with cash.  Maybe rent a car or van so the guy doesn't know what state I live in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selling guns is about to become an even riskier business. The loopholes are being closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assumes facts not in evidence. (In other words: you are pulling the "facts" out of your sphincter.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be very careful who you sell firearms to. You will be held accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not read the post you quoted, then?
Click to expand...


Loopholes are currently being closed. You sell a firearm to a Felon, you will be held accountable. Just telling you where things are headed. Be careful.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza?   If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?
Click to expand...



All of them would have passed a background check including Adam Lanza

Correction….Roof could not have passed a background check because of his recent drug conviction

But Roof actually passed a background check because of a two level screw up by people doing the background checks…

…..none of them had even a mental health background that would have kept them from getting your gun license or passing a background check.

All of the mass shooters either passed, and complied with all of the current gun laws, including magazine limits….or they simply bypassed them.  Though nothing would have kept lanza from getting through a background check he murdered his mother to get his guns.  The Columbine shooters bought their guns illegally from someone they knew…

And before you say…see….a loophole……they were under age and unable to buy those guns legally under then and current gun laws with or without a background check.

So again…..licensing gun owners is useless, registering guns is useless and both are unnecessary to deal with gun crime and mass shooters.

And of course…gun safety education, one way to decrease gun accidents, is fought by you guys.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, the government is going to confiscate how many hundreds of millions of arms?  That's funny.  I suggest you get the CD by Ken Burns, Prohibition.  It might open your mind to the enormity of the task which concerns you and the futality of it.
> 
> If you are concerned that such a task would be limited, and a house might be searched by an arbritary order of the executive, that is protected by the due process clause and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> I've suggested that each state decide on whether it would choose to require a license or not, a law which might be put to the people in the form of a referandum.
> 
> What's wrong with having to have a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's wrong because it violates the second amendment restricting gun possession if you are going to require only people with licenses to own them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh, why would I or anyone require someone who has no interest in owning or possessing a gun a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you violate the second amendment and refuse to allow someone to own/buy a gun who doesn't have a license?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you have sold a gun to Dylann Roof, James Holmes or Adam Lanza?   If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?
Click to expand...



Roof could not pass a background check because of his recent arrest on a drug charge…..and he passed the background check because there was a two level screw up in the Federal background check process…….and of course he could have bought a gun illegally…...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> To punish people who do thing that society has deemed out bounds.
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to punish people?  Is that your final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Limits"
> I used the word "limits".
> Everything you have proposed further limits on the rights of the law abiding.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both are unnecessary preconditions to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; they infringe upon the right to arms exactly as much as they infringe upon the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, and the right to an abortion.
> 
> Never mind that you know you have no capacity to soundly show that either are necessary.
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I suppose I'm willing to agree we disagree.  Too bad you're not.
Click to expand...

Translation:
You fully understand that you do not have the capacity to soundly address the challenge put to you.

Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes -  criminal law gives the state the legal means to arrest, try, convict and punish people for actions that society has deemed out of bounds.
> 
> Now tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I've written contradicts the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you keep lying that licensing and registration will infringe those rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> licensing implies you can't have a gun without a license that is infringement. Registration creates documentary evidence that can be used to confiscate all the arms when the government decides to do so. That also is infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither constitutes an infringement on legal gun ownership. Only on those who should not own guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Americans are covered under the second amendment not just those with licenses or passes some test you make up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they're in a militia, you're right.
Click to expand...

He's also right if they aren't in a militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> If a license were required would any of them passed the background check?


Still waiting for your response...
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Wry Catcher

One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.


Still waiting for your response:

Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Because I say so, now eat your toast and get ready for school.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I say so...
Click to expand...

Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.


----------



## paulitician

Hey look, Gun Nuts creep people out. They're like loony drug addicts. The more loony they get about guns, the more people wanna ban them. They see them as sick individuals. Many Gun Owners are their own worst enemies. Their behavior does them in.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Hey look, Gun Nuts creep people out. They're like loony drug addicts. The more loony they get about guns, the more people wanna ban them. They see them as sick individuals. Many Gun Owners are their own worst enemies. Their behavior does them in.




Dipstick….it isn't about guns.  It is about the right to defend yourself from violent attack.  Guns are the most effective tool for that job.  Find another one….I dare you, that is as effective and easy to use for the average, and below average person.  Find that tool and I will support it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
Click to expand...


My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.

He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.

After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.

Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
Click to expand...



Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.


----------



## paulitician

Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.




Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.


----------



## paulitician

2aguy said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
Click to expand...


Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.


----------



## 2aguy

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
Click to expand...



Yeah….except it hasn't….in fact the polls show more Americans are against more gun control laws and they don't think more laws will do anything…add to that more women and minorities are now buying guns for self defense….and you are just wrong….


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My capacitors.....
Click to expand...

Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
Click to expand...

Talk about nutball paranoia....

I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain, M14, Kaz, 2aguy and the Cleveland guy are obsessive and compulsive, probably not sufficiently neurotic to be denied a license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun, though the probability is just that, not a surety.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.
Click to expand...


I've lost any patience I had for you.  Pity is all I have left.  While M14 can't be as stupid as he appears, you might be more stupid than your posts suggest.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've lost any patience I had for you.  Pity is all I have left.  While M14 can't be as stupid as he appears, you might be more stupid than your posts suggest.
Click to expand...

Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.


----------



## Ernie S.

There ya go. You have nothing. You have babbled on for days while proposing nothing that would effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and you are arrogant about it.
You are pathetically laughable.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
Click to expand...


Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud

Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your response:
> 
> Tell us why we should enact your mindless proposals that will unconstitutionally and unnecessarily limit the rights of the law abiding but do nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns.
> 
> Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've lost any patience I had for you.  Pity is all I have left.  While M14 can't be as stupid as he appears, you might be more stupid than your posts suggest.
Click to expand...



Allow me to translate from left wing speak:

Begin Translation:

These guys are right….I've got nothing.  Licensing, registering guns, magazine limits…they are stupid and pointless and won't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.  Sure, the other left wing borg drones may actually believe that crap….but these pro civil rights guys are way to smart for that.  They even see why we really want to push licensing gun owners and registering guns….we might have power, real power, in the future and then we can get rid of all those guns….who cares if criminals have them….as long as anyone who thinks differently than we do is disarmed, we would be happy.

Oh well,  we just can't argue truth, reality or facts with these guys, they are too sharp and too aware of what our real intentions are.

Soooooo, it is back to acting childish and calling them names…..I get so tired of that ….but what else can I do…..?

End translation.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
Click to expand...



Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. I assure you, my pistol is within arm's reach.
Thank you also for confirming you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.
You've become nothing more than the punch line to a sick joke.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Nobody needs guns...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
Click to expand...

Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
Click to expand...

You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
Click to expand...

Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.

Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
Click to expand...

"50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've lost any patience I had for you.  Pity is all I have left.  While M14 can't be as stupid as he appears, you might be more stupid than your posts suggest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate from left wing speak:
> 
> Begin Translation:
> 
> These guys are right….I've got nothing.  Licensing, registering guns, magazine limits…they are stupid and pointless and won't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.  Sure, the other left wing borg drones may actually believe that crap….but these pro civil rights guys are way to smart for that.  They even see why we really want to push licensing gun owners and registering guns….we might have power, real power, in the future and then we can get rid of all those guns….who cares if criminals have them….as long as anyone who thinks differently than we do is disarmed, we would be happy.
> 
> Oh well,  we just can't argue truth, reality or facts with these guys, they are too sharp and too aware of what our real intentions are.
> 
> Soooooo, it is back to acting childish and calling them names…..I get so tired of that ….but what else can I do…..?
> 
> End translation.
Click to expand...

 Maybe we should try registration and background checks without loopholes and a good mental health system for once.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
Click to expand...

 It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> 
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
Click to expand...

Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
Click to expand...




Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
Click to expand...

 Because that is an insane country. What militia are you in?


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
Click to expand...

 Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've lost any patience I had for you.  Pity is all I have left.  While M14 can't be as stupid as he appears, you might be more stupid than your posts suggest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate from left wing speak:
> 
> Begin Translation:
> 
> These guys are right….I've got nothing.  Licensing, registering guns, magazine limits…they are stupid and pointless and won't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.  Sure, the other left wing borg drones may actually believe that crap….but these pro civil rights guys are way to smart for that.  They even see why we really want to push licensing gun owners and registering guns….we might have power, real power, in the future and then we can get rid of all those guns….who cares if criminals have them….as long as anyone who thinks differently than we do is disarmed, we would be happy.
> 
> Oh well,  we just can't argue truth, reality or facts with these guys, they are too sharp and too aware of what our real intentions are.
> 
> Soooooo, it is back to acting childish and calling them names…..I get so tired of that ….but what else can I do…..?
> 
> End translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we should try registration and background checks without loopholes and a good mental health system for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you should try a brain transplant, or maybe just get off the crack.
Click to expand...

 Reported. Any argument? GOP inequality has gotten crazy...and armed. Great job blocking hope and change for 7 years. Thanks for 9/11, the longest, stupidest wars ever, and the SECOND corrupt Pub World Depression, brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I say so...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My capacitors have been badly singed by your dishonesty and obsessive need to echo yourself.  I was being kind when I characterized you as a simple neurotic, you can't be as stupid as you appear and you remind me of an experience I had when interviewing a patient at one of the locked psych wards at Napa St. Hospital.
> 
> He was a crime victim and when medicated became quite lucid; when off his meds he was bonkers.  But the point is not him or the three interviews I had with him, it was about the young man I saw each time I visited the ward.
> 
> After my ID was checked by the psych tech and upon entering the Freedom Door a young man who appeared in his early 20's was standing a few feet from the door, rocking and nodding his head repetitively.  He was there doing the same thing each time I visited and each time I left.
> 
> Every time I read one of your posts, I think of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wry….it wasn't an interview….you are the patient.  The Doctor meets with you to see how you are coping with reality.  If you found a staff I.D. somewhere, you need to turn it in to the Dr.  you won't be in trouble, but you can't go around impersonating staff.  It isn't good for your chances of a full recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've lost any patience I had for you.  Pity is all I have left.  While M14 can't be as stupid as he appears, you might be more stupid than your posts suggest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to translate from left wing speak:
> 
> Begin Translation:
> 
> These guys are right….I've got nothing.  Licensing, registering guns, magazine limits…they are stupid and pointless and won't stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.  Sure, the other left wing borg drones may actually believe that crap….but these pro civil rights guys are way to smart for that.  They even see why we really want to push licensing gun owners and registering guns….we might have power, real power, in the future and then we can get rid of all those guns….who cares if criminals have them….as long as anyone who thinks differently than we do is disarmed, we would be happy.
> 
> Oh well,  we just can't argue truth, reality or facts with these guys, they are too sharp and too aware of what our real intentions are.
> 
> Soooooo, it is back to acting childish and calling them names…..I get so tired of that ….but what else can I do…..?
> 
> End translation.
Click to expand...


Thanks...for sharing...

Oh, ?, do you have any idea what each of these symbols are used for: ,, ', ;, ., and ...   ?


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
Click to expand...

 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
Click to expand...


So you speak for the callous conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives the neo conservatives and the Goldwater Conservatives, and you  speak for the idiot fringe, aka, the Tea Party and the Libertarians party too?  

Wow, you sure have a lot on your plate.  Lucky for you each party you represent has a small tent, imagine how difficult it would be if you had to understand the nuances of differing cultures and languages.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
Click to expand...

LINK?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing xxxxxx dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
Click to expand...



Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
Click to expand...


So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?


----------



## Jarlaxle

paulitician said:


> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.



Are you a remarkably-sophisticated spambot or just a remarkably-stupid person?


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
Click to expand...

 He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.


----------



## francoHFW

Jarlaxle said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs a hand gun- that kills in most cases. Hunters and self protection don't need hand guns. But we are MILES from ever doing that...NRA and gun corps are far too stong and rich.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he'd told you to drop to your knees and start sucking, I suppose you'd have done that, too? (Of course you would have!)
Click to expand...

 Reported. As if that ever happens, a-hole vulgar POS GOP hater dupe. You really have a red neck pervert thing going. Bet you have big guns lol.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> 
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
Click to expand...

You mean the Boosh Meltdown/world depression/mindless Pub obstruction years? The 25 years BEFORE that duh.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> 
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
Click to expand...

 
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
*1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%
*A 13% drop since 1980
2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%
*An increase of 16% since Reagan.
3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
*A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%
A 45% increase after 1980.
*5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:
1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%
*A 5.6 times increase.
6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%
*A 10% Decrease.*
Links:
1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts


----------



## Jarlaxle

francoHFW said:


> Reported. As if that ever happens, a-hole vulgar POS GOP hater dupe. You really have a red neck pervert thing going. Bet you have big guns lol.



Figured you would.

Why does the thought of defending yourself cause your bowels to loosen?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> 
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
Click to expand...


Before the country changed?  Who changed it? 

He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.  

But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the Boosh Meltdown/world depression/mindless Pub obstruction years? The 25 years BEFORE that duh.
Click to expand...




francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105% – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 = 96%
> 2007 = 92%
> *A 13% drop since 1980
> 2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.
> 3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
> 4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> *A 5.6 times increase.
> 6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 = 6%
> 1990 = 3%
> 2000 = 2%
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> Links:
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
> 4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
> 4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
> Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
Click to expand...


I see you conveniently omitted when this gap between the rich and poor happened under the DumBama administration.  And oh yes, how about poverty?  How about unemployment by race?    How about female unemployment in this country?


----------



## francoHFW

Jarlaxle said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reported. As if that ever happens, a-hole vulgar POS GOP hater dupe. You really have a red neck pervert thing going. Bet you have big guns lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figured you would.
> 
> Why does the thought of defending yourself cause your bowels to loosen?
Click to expand...

 I want as few jackasses like you running around with a gun as possible. I'll defend myself in a war, not your dumbass GOP crime world.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the Boosh Meltdown/world depression/mindless Pub obstruction years? The 25 years BEFORE that duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105% – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 = 96%
> 2007 = 92%
> *A 13% drop since 1980
> 2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.
> 3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
> 4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> *A 5.6 times increase.
> 6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 = 6%
> 1990 = 3%
> 2000 = 2%
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> Links:
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
> 4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
> 4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
> Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you conveniently omitted when this gap between the rich and poor happened under the DumBama administration.  And oh yes, how about poverty?  How about unemployment by race?    How about female unemployment in this country?
Click to expand...

That was just a continuation duh. And gets even worse because that's what HAPPENS in the typical Pub corrupt bubble bust depression, of course. Did you notice in my last post WHEN OUR COUNTRY STARTED GOING TO HELL.


----------



## francoHFW

*After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the Boosh Meltdown/world depression/mindless Pub obstruction years? The 25 years BEFORE that duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality is the fault of Liberal policy.
> In a Capitalist system, poverty is counter-productive. Poor people cost  the wealthy in added taxes and they make piss poor customers.
> Add to that the fact that the poor commit crime at a vastly higher rate and it should be quite plain why I carry a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, that's why inequality has grown every year since Reaganism took over- STILL defended to the death by Pubs, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when has inequality grown so vastly as during the Obama administration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:
> *1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.*
> Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.
> But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):
> 1950 = 101%
> 1960 = 105%
> 1970 = 105%
> 1980 = 105% – Reagan
> 1990 = 100%
> 2000 = 96%
> 2007 = 92%
> *A 13% drop since 1980
> 2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.*
> Share of National Income going to Top 10%:
> 1950 = 35%
> 1960 = 34%
> 1970 = 34%
> 1980 = 34% – Reagan
> 1990 = 40%
> 2000 = 47%
> 2007 = 50%
> *An increase of 16% since Reagan.
> 3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.*
> The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.
> 1950 = 6.0%
> 1960 = 7.0%
> 1970 = 8.5%
> 1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
> 1982 = 11.2% – Peak
> 1990 = 7.0%
> 2000 = 2.0%
> 2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)
> *A 12.3% drop after Reagan.
> 4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.*
> Household Debt as percentage of GDP:
> 1965 = 46%
> 1970 = 45%
> 1980 = 50% – Reagan
> 1990 = 61%
> 2000 = 69%
> 2007 = 95%
> A 45% increase after 1980.
> *5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.*
> Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
> and the bottom 80%:
> 1980 = 10%
> 2003 = 56%
> *A 5.6 times increase.
> 6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.*
> The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:
> 1945 = 12%
> 1958 = 6%
> 1990 = 3%
> 2000 = 2%
> *A 10% Decrease.*
> Links:
> 1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
> 1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
> 1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
> 2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
> 3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
> 3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
> 4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
> 4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
> 5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start
> Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you conveniently omitted when this gap between the rich and poor happened under the DumBama administration.  And oh yes, how about poverty?  How about unemployment by race?    How about female unemployment in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was just a continuation duh. And gets even worse because that's what HAPPENS in the typical Pub corrupt bubble bust depression, of course. Did you notice in my last post WHEN OUR COUNTRY STARTED GOING TO HELL.
Click to expand...


Oh, so it was a continuation?  What happened to Hope and Change?  LOL!


----------



## francoHFW

OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.


----------



## francoHFW

We have the best economy in the world again, the world is still hurting- but the US does just fine with all our advantages, as long as your a-hole heroes don't get in and start ANOTHER corrupt bubble.


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
Click to expand...

You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.



Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended. 

DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.   

What did the Republicans in Congress get?


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the democrat party that has the problem with skin color.  We are conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Party members, we don't care about race.
> 
> 
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
Click to expand...

I've been for civil unions for years. What I'm against is calling you fucking your boyfriend a marriage.


----------



## Ernie S.

francoHFW said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> 
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he'd told you to drop to your knees and start sucking, I suppose you'd have done that, too? (Of course you would have!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reported. As if that ever happens, a-hole vulgar POS GOP hater dupe. You really have a red neck pervert thing going. Bet you have big guns lol.
Click to expand...

Reported???? For what violation? Hurting your tender feelings?


----------



## paulitician

Ernie S. said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
Click to expand...


The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Maybe we should try registration and background checks without loopholes and a good mental health system for once.


Like in California?
The state with the highest rates of violent crime and gun-related violence?
Or, how about Vermont, where there are -no- state level restrictions on guns, and violent crime/gun related crime rates are the lowest?


----------



## M14 Shooter

francoHFW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to walk around with a holstered rifle.  I prefer a pistol.
> 
> 
> 
> WTH for? Where is this 19th century western town? lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but the guy with a big friggin' knife who wanted to cut me back in July, didn't only because I was carrying a pistol.
> It doesn't happen all that often, but depending on what you do for a living or where you live, at some point in your life, you may just be confronted by someone who wants to take you life or property. In my case, I have prevented 2 assaults on myself and the rape of my ex-wife with 3 different firearms.
> Feel free to allow yourself to die at the hands of a criminal. I refuse to sit idly by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, Alabama. GOP country. Sounds great. I gave my mugger with a gun in Buffalo $70 and he left. 8 years of Dem policy and tax rates and we could end this. Or we could try Pub ideas and just cut taxes on the rich and give everybody a hand gun...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two of these incidents happened in Liberal Connecticut. I have carried a concealed handgun over 40 years.
> 
> Why not give everyone a free handgun? We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We provide free phones and birth control to people despite no specific Constitutional guarantee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It really doesn't matter where while we have handguns everywhere and the most unequal country in over 100 years. TYVM, New BS Big Money Propaganda GOP.
Click to expand...

Says the village useful idiot, mindlessly parroting his masters.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Nuts need to check themselves, before they wreck themselves. It's their own manic obsessive behavior that's driving more Americans to wanna ban guns. To be blunt, they creep people out. I know the behavior well. I used to be a gun seller. Gun Nuts are their own worst enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, living in Alabama it makes sense to be armed all the time, you're not too far from Georgia and need to be prepared for Gen. Sherman and those damn Yankees who surround you, hell they have come south here tell have set camp in Houston, St,. Pete and Atlanta.  Too close to you for comfort; it must make sleeping difficult.  Are you feared to go out at night for that six pack of Bud
> 
> Keep 'em at the ready, loaded and at hand always, you never know when those damn Yankees will come to town.  I hear tell some of them are liberals, some are gay and some are colored.
Click to expand...

Good to see you fully understand your lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> 
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
Click to expand...


Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".

The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
Click to expand...



Hmmm…bullshit……

For your information….it is our money…..we earned it….not the politicians in the government.  That you would post something so stupid is not surprising.

The only people practicing avarice are the politicians in government and their useful idiots like you, who want to give them more of our money that they can waste, steal, lose and use for their own purposes.

The ones who back limiting access to political speech….politicians and you, their useful minions, who want to keep out anyone who won't kneel at the alter of the state.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
Click to expand...


Perfidious rhetoric ^^^ by distorting reality is the falderal of members of the crazy right wing.  You have zero credibility with anyone perched in reality and those who understand the realpolitik and political theater that has dominated the first decades of the 21st Century.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Perfidious rhetoric ^^^ by distorting reality is the falderal of members of the crazy right wing.  You have zero credibility with anyone perched in reality and those who understand the realpolitik and political theater that has dominated the first decades of the 21st Century.



Says he who fully understands his lack of capacity to soundly address these issues.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm…bullshit……
> 
> For your information….it is our money…..we earned it….not the politicians in the government.  That you would post something so stupid is not surprising.
> 
> The only people practicing avarice are the politicians in government and their useful idiots like you, who want to give them more of our money that they can waste, steal, lose and use for their own purposes.
> 
> The ones who back limiting access to political speech….politicians and you, their useful minions, who want to keep out anyone who won't kneel at the alter of the state.
Click to expand...


Your odium for American citizens who choose to run for office or work in the civil service is pathological.  In words you might understand, "you are a sick puppy", biddable (that means you are a sheep) as well as dumb.

Every nation-state collects taxes, and it is the duty of all patriots to support our elected government.  Consider these words, written before the COTUS, and the circumstances the founders faced:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Every two years we have the power to institute a new government; you and I have every right to work to effect change with our vote.  We have a duty to vote and a duty to be informed.  You have breached your duty to be informed.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm…bullshit……
> 
> For your information….it is our money…..we earned it….not the politicians in the government.  That you would post something so stupid is not surprising.
> 
> The only people practicing avarice are the politicians in government and their useful idiots like you, who want to give them more of our money that they can waste, steal, lose and use for their own purposes.
> 
> The ones who back limiting access to political speech….politicians and you, their useful minions, who want to keep out anyone who won't kneel at the alter of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your odium for American citizens who choose to run for office or work in the civil service is pathological.  In words you might understand, "you are a sick puppy", biddable (that means you are a sheep) as well as dumb.
> 
> Every nation-state collects taxes, and it is the duty of all patriots to support our elected government.  Consider these words, written before the COTUS, and the circumstances the founders faced:
> 
> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
> 
> Every two years we have the power to institute a new government; you and I have every right to work to effect change with our vote.  We have a duty to vote and a duty to be informed.  You have breached your duty to be informed.
Click to expand...



So….you think we are well served by those in government, the politicians and the bureaucrats…….you really are mentally ill…...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Your odium for American citizens who choose to run for office or work in the civil service is pathological.  In words you might understand, "you are a sick puppy", biddable (that means you are a sheep) as well as dumb.


Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm…bullshit……
> 
> For your information….it is our money…..we earned it….not the politicians in the government.  That you would post something so stupid is not surprising.
> 
> The only people practicing avarice are the politicians in government and their useful idiots like you, who want to give them more of our money that they can waste, steal, lose and use for their own purposes.
> 
> The ones who back limiting access to political speech….politicians and you, their useful minions, who want to keep out anyone who won't kneel at the alter of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your odium for American citizens who choose to run for office or work in the civil service is pathological.  In words you might understand, "you are a sick puppy", biddable (that means you are a sheep) as well as dumb.
> 
> Every nation-state collects taxes, and it is the duty of all patriots to support our elected government.  Consider these words, written before the COTUS, and the circumstances the founders faced:
> 
> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
> 
> Every two years we have the power to institute a new government; you and I have every right to work to effect change with our vote.  We have a duty to vote and a duty to be informed.  You have breached your duty to be informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So….you think we are well served by those in government, the politicians and the bureaucrats…….you really are mentally ill…...
Click to expand...


That's not what I think, but thank you for recognizing I think, since you seem to lack that attribute.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your odium for American citizens who choose to run for office or work in the civil service is pathological.  In words you might understand, "you are a sick puppy", biddable (that means you are a sheep) as well as dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.
Click to expand...


I've made my case over and over, it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.  

Posting the same thing over and over and expecting a different response is your game, and that of the other three stooges.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my case over and over
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
You've stated what you want to do, over and over
-You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
-You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
-You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
-You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.


> it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.


The truth...  that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution?  I fully acknowledge that truth.
YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above


----------



## danielpalos

Implement a police-State (USA) with command economics policies that resort to war and analogies to war instead of Commerce well regulated; and get as many gun lovers into a felony conviction in order to justify Infringing on their Right to keep and bear Arms (and ammunition), for life.

oh, wait; the right already has that idea in full progress(ive) mode.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm…bullshit……
> 
> For your information….it is our money…..we earned it….not the politicians in the government.  That you would post something so stupid is not surprising.
> 
> The only people practicing avarice are the politicians in government and their useful idiots like you, who want to give them more of our money that they can waste, steal, lose and use for their own purposes.
> 
> The ones who back limiting access to political speech….politicians and you, their useful minions, who want to keep out anyone who won't kneel at the alter of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your odium for American citizens who choose to run for office or work in the civil service is pathological.  In words you might understand, "you are a sick puppy", biddable (that means you are a sheep) as well as dumb.
> 
> Every nation-state collects taxes, and it is the duty of all patriots to support our elected government.  Consider these words, written before the COTUS, and the circumstances the founders faced:
> 
> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. *Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes*; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
> 
> Every two years we have the power to institute a new government; you and I have every right to work to effect change with our vote.  We have a duty to vote and a duty to be informed.  You have breached your duty to be informed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So….you think we are well served by those in government, the politicians and the bureaucrats…….you really are mentally ill…...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I think, but thank you for recognizing I think, since you seem to lack that attribute.
Click to expand...

You think you think. What you do is regurgitate what others think, frequently with ten dollar words that you use to impress people.
Perhaps it works with your fellow Liberals, but to truly thinking people, it's rather pathetic. Saying nothing with big words is still saying nothing.
We are not impressed, either by your vacuous vomitus or your arrogance. 
You are really quite common.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
Click to expand...


Yes it has.  It was so much better when unions and trial lawyers were the only ones allowed to influence our representatives.  That's why you can sue McDonald's because your kid is too fat or you dumped hot coffee on yourself. 

If you buy a toaster today, the first five pages are all warnings: Don't stick tongue in toaster while plugged in.  Do not take toaster in shower with you.  And maybe the last page will tell you how to operate it.  

You say it's greed to want to keep the money you earn?  I think it's greed when you don't work and want money from other people.  

_*"Liberals believe if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are." 
Ken Blackwell*_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

paulitician said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah….latest polls show more and more people are against more gun control laws…even after Sandy Hook and the Theater shooting……..the people who "creep" people out…..violent criminals.  That is why they support owning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
Click to expand...


For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.   

If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
Click to expand...

 They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.

BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
Click to expand...


Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?  

We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.


----------



## francoHFW

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
Click to expand...

 Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.

So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.


----------



## francoHFW

Ernie S. said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are brainwashed functional moron hater dupes of the the greedy ugly American idiot rich New BS GOP. lol. 50%+ of you are racists and bigots and you're a disgrace. lol
> 
> 
> 
> "50%+ of you are racists and bigots" PROVE THAT, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been for civil unions for years. What I'm against is calling you fucking your boyfriend a marriage.
Click to expand...

 Stop being a pervert and bigot, then. lol


----------



## francoHFW

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 49% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim and not American, also against gay marriage. A disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he said he was against gay marriage.  He didn't change his tune until his brilliant VP spoke up for gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said he was for civil union until the country changed. He IS a politician duh. Bigots are against BOTH. GOPers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before the country changed?  Who changed it?
> 
> He also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  He also said if you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance.
> 
> But then again, he's a bull........I mean politician.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who changed it?  That's easy, Ronald Reagan.  He changed avarice from a deadly sin into a virtue.  He sanctioned greed, "it's your money" and disdain for government that once was, in the words of President Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
> 
> The recent decision by five lawyers which sanctioned the use of money to influence elections has continue the transformation of United States from a beacon of democracy into the plutocracy we have become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm…bullshit……
> 
> For your information….it is our money…..we earned it….not the politicians in the government.  That you would post something so stupid is not surprising.
> 
> The only people practicing avarice are the politicians in government and their useful idiots like you, who want to give them more of our money that they can waste, steal, lose and use for their own purposes.
> 
> The ones who back limiting access to political speech….politicians and you, their useful minions, who want to keep out anyone who won't kneel at the alter of the state.
Click to expand...

Listen, hater dupe, we want to raise taxes on the richest and giant corps. NOT YOU, brainwashed functional moron. The Pubs want to do that, and HAVE. ARRGGHH!!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
Click to expand...

 
I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
Click to expand...


You're very ignorant.  

"hroughout the 1990s the U.S. government has expended some $200 billion annually, or between 2 and 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, through more than 20 million contracts to procure goods and services from private-sector firms. Slightly more than half of this amount (around 55 percent) has gone for services, with the rest going to acquire products. All of this buying is done through a highly decentralized, and often confusing, procurement structure. In addition, each year state and local governments collectively spend about the same amount as the federal government. Government contracts range in value from a few thousand dollars each to a billion or more dollars; likewise, contractors range in size from small businesses to major corporations.

Government contracts spell out precisely the goods or services that the government needs and the exact terms of payment. Therefore a contract is not the same as a grant, which is an outright award of money that the government makes to a grantee, with no expectation of a particular product or service in return. A government contract for a sum smaller than $25,000, moreover, is issued by means of a purchase order and is much less onerous to apply for than a large contract. Purchase orders are so common in government that their exact amount has not been determined, making aggregate procurement statistics only approximate.

Despite the occasional revelations of grossly overpriced goods that a government agency may have bought, or mistaken payments to vendors who had never sold the government anything, these are exceptional incidents.* Government procurement is guided by a few basic principles: contracts are generally awarded to the lowest bidder; *in addition, they are open to all qualified bidders; and there are prohibitions against favoritism. Moreover, the government is required by law to set aside contracts for small, disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by women and minorities."



Read more: Government Contracts - expenses


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
Click to expand...


Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
Click to expand...


You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get. 

And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.


----------



## 2aguy

francoHFW said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
Click to expand...



Everyone should pay 15% with an initial exemption of about 50 grand......


----------



## paulitician

Ray From Cleveland said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many Gun Owners exhibit nutball paranoid obsessive behavior. That behavior is turning Americans off. More & more will support banning guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
Click to expand...


I won't come for you guns. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment. But Gun Nuts really are their own worst enemies. They creep people out. Their behavior is hostile and obsessive. They need to stop getting boners over guns. They need to chill out.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're very ignorant.
> 
> "hroughout the 1990s the U.S. government has expended some $200 billion annually, or between 2 and 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, through more than 20 million contracts to procure goods and services from private-sector firms. Slightly more than half of this amount (around 55 percent) has gone for services, with the rest going to acquire products. All of this buying is done through a highly decentralized, and often confusing, procurement structure. In addition, each year state and local governments collectively spend about the same amount as the federal government. Government contracts range in value from a few thousand dollars each to a billion or more dollars; likewise, contractors range in size from small businesses to major corporations.
> 
> Government contracts spell out precisely the goods or services that the government needs and the exact terms of payment. Therefore a contract is not the same as a grant, which is an outright award of money that the government makes to a grantee, with no expectation of a particular product or service in return. A government contract for a sum smaller than $25,000, moreover, is issued by means of a purchase order and is much less onerous to apply for than a large contract. Purchase orders are so common in government that their exact amount has not been determined, making aggregate procurement statistics only approximate.
> 
> Despite the occasional revelations of grossly overpriced goods that a government agency may have bought, or mistaken payments to vendors who had never sold the government anything, these are exceptional incidents.* Government procurement is guided by a few basic principles: contracts are generally awarded to the lowest bidder; *in addition, they are open to all qualified bidders; and there are prohibitions against favoritism. Moreover, the government is required by law to set aside contracts for small, disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by women and minorities."
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Government Contracts - expenses
Click to expand...

"prohibitions against favoritism" Really?
*USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS *

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 _et seq._, and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:


----------



## Ernie S.

paulitician said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about nutball paranoia....
> 
> I'll be even scarier tomorrow afternoon after I take delivery of my 2 new Colt 1873 SAAs.
> You probably should stay away from Alabama. At any given time, 20% of us are carrying a weapon. I assure you. We are not paranoid. We are prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't come for you guns. I'm Pro-2nd Amendment. But Gun Nuts really are their own worst enemies. They creep people out. Their behavior is hostile and obsessive. They need to stop getting boners over guns. They need to chill out.
Click to expand...

They creep out your pansy ass, perhaps, but 99% of people I encounter day to day have no idea that I am constantly armed.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> 
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.
Click to expand...


I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree;  "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.

CA PC 422 _Et Seq_. 

_422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison._

Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously.  Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're very ignorant.
> 
> "hroughout the 1990s the U.S. government has expended some $200 billion annually, or between 2 and 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, through more than 20 million contracts to procure goods and services from private-sector firms. Slightly more than half of this amount (around 55 percent) has gone for services, with the rest going to acquire products. All of this buying is done through a highly decentralized, and often confusing, procurement structure. In addition, each year state and local governments collectively spend about the same amount as the federal government. Government contracts range in value from a few thousand dollars each to a billion or more dollars; likewise, contractors range in size from small businesses to major corporations.
> 
> Government contracts spell out precisely the goods or services that the government needs and the exact terms of payment. Therefore a contract is not the same as a grant, which is an outright award of money that the government makes to a grantee, with no expectation of a particular product or service in return. A government contract for a sum smaller than $25,000, moreover, is issued by means of a purchase order and is much less onerous to apply for than a large contract. Purchase orders are so common in government that their exact amount has not been determined, making aggregate procurement statistics only approximate.
> 
> Despite the occasional revelations of grossly overpriced goods that a government agency may have bought, or mistaken payments to vendors who had never sold the government anything, these are exceptional incidents.* Government procurement is guided by a few basic principles: contracts are generally awarded to the lowest bidder; *in addition, they are open to all qualified bidders; and there are prohibitions against favoritism. Moreover, the government is required by law to set aside contracts for small, disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by women and minorities."
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Government Contracts - expenses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "prohibitions against favoritism" Really?
> *USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS *
> 
> By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 _et seq._, and in order to promote the efficient administration and completion of Federal construction projects, it is hereby ordered that:
Click to expand...


Gee Ernie, I suspect you should ask Burt to do your research - he's the brighter puppet.


----------



## Ernie S.

I blew your post out of the water and that's all you got?
Yup. You're arrogant with absolutely no reason to be. I believe I know why you're no longer in law enforcement.

Read the link


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OF course, you silly man. WTF has Obama been allowed to do, the stimulus ran out in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.
> 
> And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.
Click to expand...


And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> I blew your post out of the water and that's all you got?
> Yup. You're arrogant with absolutely no reason to be. I believe I know why you're no longer in law enforcement.
> 
> Read the link



I did.  And I'm mindful of the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton and KBR; both Obama's EO and (supposedly) Bush/Cheney felt there were extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such contracts.

BTW, I'm retired.  Safety Retirement is quite nice.


----------



## The Rabbi

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, sweet home Alabama. Home of the camo-wearing sister-fucking dipshits. Seriously, you're an embarrassment to our nation.
> 
> 
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.
Click to expand...

Wry spent 32 years guarding young black and Hispanic men.  Much of that time he was on his knees in front of them in the men's room.  He has a "different perspective" on lawbreakers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it ran out in 2010, and you couldn't tell the difference from when it started until it ended.
> 
> DumBama has been allowed to raise taxes, get his way on spending with the force of a government shutdown, have his AG approved, had his Supreme Court nominee appointed which helped his Commie healthcare plan from being ruled unconstitutional, got gay marriage and gays in the military, gave Iraq to ISIS after our long bloody war, giving Iran a path to nuclear weapons.
> 
> What did the Republicans in Congress get?
> 
> 
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.
> 
> And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?
Click to expand...


They do?  They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?  

No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them.  It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wry Catcher said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an embarrassment to your gender. I don't wear camo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree;  "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.
> 
> CA PC 422 _Et Seq_.
> 
> _422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
> will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
> the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
> by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
> threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
> which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
> is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
> convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
> immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
> that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
> safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
> by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
> imprisonment in the state prison._
> 
> Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously.  Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.
Click to expand...


You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement?  You don't know the first thing about law.  Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.


----------



## The Rabbi

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree;  "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.
> 
> CA PC 422 _Et Seq_.
> 
> _422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
> will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
> the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
> by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
> threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
> which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
> is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
> convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
> immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
> that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
> safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
> by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
> imprisonment in the state prison._
> 
> Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously.  Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement?  You don't know the first thing about law.  Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.
Click to expand...

He was responsible for collecting the payoffs and distributing dope in the joint.  He knows all about it.  Ask him how do you toss a salad.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

The Rabbi said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree;  "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.
> 
> CA PC 422 _Et Seq_.
> 
> _422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
> will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
> the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
> by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
> threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
> which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
> is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
> convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
> immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
> that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
> safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
> by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
> imprisonment in the state prison._
> 
> Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously.  Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement?  You don't know the first thing about law.  Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was responsible for collecting the payoffs and distributing dope in the joint.  He knows all about it.  Ask him how do you toss a salad.
Click to expand...


He's a phony.  I know people in law enforcement, and they don't talk like this guy.  As another member pointed out, he struggles to find these ten-dollar words to unnecessarily to use in his replies.  And what really gives him away is that he also claims to have a business, but is pro tax the wealthy.  It just doesn't add up.  

These posers just don't realize how obvious they are in most cases.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only want to tax cuts on the rich and keep all the corporate loopholes. Yes, Obama got shytte. And you are totally misinformed. We as a COUNTRY desperately need an infrastructure bank, training for UE for 3-4 million tech jobs GOING BEGGING, the immigration bill now being blocked and a good SS ID card. But being total Pub a-holes and divided hater dupes is MUCH more important. I know, let's have a gov't shutdown over bs PP propaganda.
> 
> BTW, all the gun intelligence he wants only START NOW, hater dupes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.
> 
> And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do?  They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?
> 
> No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them.  It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.
Click to expand...


I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget. 







Here's the federal budget.

17% goes on defense. 

How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors. 

So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.

Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.

But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich. 

Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower. 

But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.


----------



## danielpalos

I believe social spending via our "warfare-State" regime should be reflected under defense spending; our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, should be listed as "defense" spending.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blew your post out of the water and that's all you got?
> Yup. You're arrogant with absolutely no reason to be. I believe I know why you're no longer in law enforcement.
> 
> Read the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.  And I'm mindful of the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton and KBR; both Obama's EO and (supposedly) Bush/Cheney felt there were extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such contracts.
> 
> BTW, I'm retired.  Safety Retirement is quite nice.
Click to expand...

Yup, extraordinary circumstances that require union labor..... You a funny dude.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> The World is shocked and embarrassed that you Rebel Flag-waving xxxxx loons still exist. But we all take comfort in realizing your numbers are getting smaller. Your extinction isn't too far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For gun lovers, the numbers are getting larger.  I would watch your own extinction if I were you.
> 
> If you come for my gun, you better bring yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent over 32 years carrying a badge, and I've been threatened by punks, usually when they are safely secured in a cage.  You can threaten me all you want, hiding behind your keyboard impresses me not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fake cop would take what I wrote as a threat; especially since I as not addressing you in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said before I had a career in LE, I wore a coat and tie and the MQ's required a Master's degree;  "If you come for my gun, you better bring yours" has all the elements for a terrorist threat.
> 
> CA PC 422 _Et Seq_.
> 
> _422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
> will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
> the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
> by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
> threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
> which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
> is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
> convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
> immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
> that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
> safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
> by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
> imprisonment in the state prison._
> 
> Of course you are an internet punk, so I do not take anything you write seriously.  Just be aware, comments which make you feel manly can get you investigated, or laughed at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't even bright enough to recognize a saying from a threat, and then expect me to believe you were in law enforcement?  You don't know the first thing about law.  Without the internet, you wouldn't even know what jaywalking is.
Click to expand...


Sure I do, I watched Leno, but preferred Letterman.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my case over and over
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
You've stated what you want to do, over and over
-You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
-You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
-You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
-You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.


> it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.


The truth...  that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution?  I fully acknowledge that truth.
YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my case over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> You've stated what you want to do, over and over
> -You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
> -You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
> -You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
> -You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
> And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.
> 
> 
> 
> it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth...  that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution?  I fully acknowledge that truth.
> YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above
Click to expand...


Thanks so much for sharing your ... opinions.  My thoughts on the issue really push your buttons, and those of the others who are emotionally attached to an inanimate object.

That too I find to pathological.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that if you had anything worthwhile to say, you'd not have to resort to personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my case over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie.
> You've stated what you want to do, over and over
> -You have not soundly illustrated the necessity of doing those those things
> -You have not soundly demonstrated the efficacy of doing those things
> -You have not soundly explained how those things do not violate the constitution.
> -You HAVE run away from every challenge for you to fill the obligations noted above.
> And thus, you have not even begun to make your case.
> 
> 
> 
> it's the mendacious assholes like you who won't acknowledge that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth...  that you only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution?  I fully acknowledge that truth.
> YOU fully acknowledge the truth that you understand your lack of capacity to soundly address issues noted above
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing your ... opinions.
Click to expand...

You mean facts. 
You only want to further limit the rights of the law abiding with mindless, unnecessary, ineffective restrictions that violate the Constitution.
Like all the other anti-gun loons.
Nothing more, nothing less..


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax cuts on the rich, huh?  Well maybe tax cuts do belong to the rich since they pay most of them?  Who should we give tax cuts to, those who pay the least?
> 
> We might have money for infrastructure if we didn't use union construction companies all the time. Maybe if we gave work to the lowest bidder, we might be able to make our infrastructure dollar stretch much further.
> 
> 
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.
> 
> And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do?  They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?
> 
> No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them.  It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the federal budget.
> 
> 17% goes on defense.
> 
> How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.
> 
> So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.
> 
> Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.
> 
> But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.
> 
> Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.
> 
> But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.
Click to expand...


No.  For one, our military protects all of us equally.  Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.  

Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others.  It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not.  Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare.  It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.  

Social Security?  The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back.  Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.  

So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people? 

Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job.  That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms.  Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, if you count ALL taxes and fees, the richest pay less than the upper middle class, 28% to 29%, the middle quintile about 27%, and the poorest 20%, with all the new wealth going to the richest. You are a functional brainwashed fool of lying a=hole Pub billionaires.
> 
> So you want the illegals doing the infrastructure... That's what you'd get lol. The Pub way, dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.
> 
> And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do?  They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?
> 
> No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them.  It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the federal budget.
> 
> 17% goes on defense.
> 
> How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.
> 
> So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.
> 
> Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.
> 
> But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.
> 
> Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.
> 
> But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  For one, our military protects all of us equally.  Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.
> 
> Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others.  It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not.  Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare.  It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.
> 
> Social Security?  The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back.  Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.
> 
> So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?
> 
> Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job.  That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms.  Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil. 

Who benefits from cheaper oil? A lot of companies that are using a lot of oil. Transport companies for example, those who use transport companies to transport their goods and so on. 

Exxon makes the most gross revenue of all oil companies in Iraq right now. They have 60% of the West Qurna Field. 

Second is BP. While officially British its shares are owned by a lot of Americans. 

Occidental also makes a lot of money. 

Shell is a large player there too. It might be officially Dutch but the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors, founded by some guy in Alabama, and the chairman is David I. Fisher, who I'm assuming is American, though I can't find the information with a quick search.

The point being that rich people are able to make profit from such wars. The war itself was designed to stop OPEC making a strong cartel again, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya have all been targeted, as well as Iran with sanctions (sanctions also aganst Venezuela) in order to weaken their ability to set oil prices where they wish to set oil prices. 

Halliburton. Do I need to say much about the former VP's interest in this company?






Before they got into the White House they were running on between $10 and $13 billion, this jumped to $18billion, meaning the Iraq War was making them at least $5 billion a year, which was, compared to 2002, an increase of $7.5 billion, nearly doubling their revenue. 





Lockheed Martin stock prices. 

I could go on.There's a lot of profit made by defense contractors. They made money because the US govt was buying their stuff for their war in Iraq which cost the US people a lot of money. Who funded this war? Well, people who pay taxes. Question is, did these companies pay more in taxes or did they receive more in profits? I'd go for the latter.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

frigidweirdo said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're insane.  Nearly half of the people in our country pay no income tax at all.  That's where the money comes from for all the government goodies we get.
> 
> And if you look at who is paying the most, it's the top percentage of wage earners in this country.  It's been posted on this site countless times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do?  They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?
> 
> No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them.  It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the federal budget.
> 
> 17% goes on defense.
> 
> How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.
> 
> So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.
> 
> Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.
> 
> But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.
> 
> Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.
> 
> But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  For one, our military protects all of us equally.  Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.
> 
> Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others.  It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not.  Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare.  It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.
> 
> Social Security?  The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back.  Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.
> 
> So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?
> 
> Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job.  That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms.  Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> Who benefits from cheaper oil? A lot of companies that are using a lot of oil. Transport companies for example, those who use transport companies to transport their goods and so on.
> 
> Exxon makes the most gross revenue of all oil companies in Iraq right now. They have 60% of the West Qurna Field.
> 
> Second is BP. While officially British its shares are owned by a lot of Americans.
> 
> Occidental also makes a lot of money.
> 
> Shell is a large player there too. It might be officially Dutch but the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors, founded by some guy in Alabama, and the chairman is David I. Fisher, who I'm assuming is American, though I can't find the information with a quick search.
> 
> The point being that rich people are able to make profit from such wars. The war itself was designed to stop OPEC making a strong cartel again, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya have all been targeted, as well as Iran with sanctions (sanctions also aganst Venezuela) in order to weaken their ability to set oil prices where they wish to set oil prices.
> 
> Halliburton. Do I need to say much about the former VP's interest in this company?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before they got into the White House they were running on between $10 and $13 billion, this jumped to $18billion, meaning the Iraq War was making them at least $5 billion a year, which was, compared to 2002, an increase of $7.5 billion, nearly doubling their revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin stock prices.
> 
> I could go on.There's a lot of profit made by defense contractors. They made money because the US govt was buying their stuff for their war in Iraq which cost the US people a lot of money. Who funded this war? Well, people who pay taxes. Question is, did these companies pay more in taxes or did they receive more in profits? I'd go for the latter.
Click to expand...


You might have a point had Cheney not sold all interests in Halliburton to run for VP. 

Who denied Halliburton made money?  Of course they made money.   What business that you are aware of operates without making money?  

Haliburton is the company used in nearly every one of our rebuilding projects since Vietnam. 

So where is all this oil from Iraq that you speak of?  Need I post our imported oil showing that Iraq is way down the list?  Before fracking, we got most of our oil from Mexico and Canada.  Thanks to fracking (which liberals were always against) we are now independent of much foreign oil.  

And who benefits most from lower oil prices?  Did you notice that our economy has improved slightly since the price of our fuel has dropped?  No, it wasn't the fake stimulus package or Commie Care.  It was because of lower fuel prices.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they also use the most government services..... so....... What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  They use welfare, food stamps, HUD, the police and rescue crew, the public schools, school lunches, Obama Care, Obama phones?
> 
> No, they use few if any of those services, but they pay for them.  It's the bottom half of wage earners that use all these programs and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say poor people didn't use services, I said rich people use MORE services. They take up far more of the government's budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the federal budget.
> 
> 17% goes on defense.
> 
> How many poor people benefit? Well there are those who are employed by the armed forces. I'd guess many people who work for defense contractors aren't considered poor, the average wage must be higher than many sectors.
> 
> So who really benefits? A look at oil companies in Iraq might give you a slight clue. But not only the vast amount spent on the two wars which benefited rich people massively, companies like Halliburton and especially people buying their stocks and shares.
> 
> Healthcare 24%. Well, sure, poor people can benefit, before Obamacare however poor people benefited far less. Seeing as 50% of the money that is spent on healthcare is spent by the government. Rich people who employ poor people get a lot of benefits out of it, companies like Walmart can afford to pay less for healthcare.
> 
> But an estimated 3% of healthcare spending goes on corruption, that's an at least, I'd say more like 6%. 3% would be 12% of the healthcare spending, or 6% of the money the feds pay. Who benefits from this corruption? Rich doctors taking handouts from Pharma companies for using their more than expensive drugs (as we saw with some guy who took a $9 drug and started charging $700, a few bribes and his drug is going to be taking him all the way to the bank), and other such things that benefit the rich.
> 
> Social security, well, seeing how Walmart make the most of this, this level of spending might be a lot lower.
> 
> But again, companies making loads of money out of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  For one, our military protects all of us equally.  Nobody is protected more than another rich or poor.
> 
> Walmart nor anybody else should be responsible for the healthcare coverage of others.  It doesn't matter if we had government healthcare or not.  Walmart doesn't offer some of it's employees healthcare.  It's not a "benefit" Walmart receives from government.
> 
> Social Security?  The wealthy have paid the maximum amount for much of their lives, yet only few would collect any of it back.  Wealthy people don't need that extra few thousand a month.
> 
> So who would you have called to repair Iraq, the homeless people?
> 
> Haliburton was the only company large enough to handle that big of a job.  That's besides the fact Saddam used Halliburton to erect all his oil wells and platforms.  Who better than Halliburton to repair all the damage to their wells?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> Who benefits from cheaper oil? A lot of companies that are using a lot of oil. Transport companies for example, those who use transport companies to transport their goods and so on.
> 
> Exxon makes the most gross revenue of all oil companies in Iraq right now. They have 60% of the West Qurna Field.
> 
> Second is BP. While officially British its shares are owned by a lot of Americans.
> 
> Occidental also makes a lot of money.
> 
> Shell is a large player there too. It might be officially Dutch but the largest shareholder is Capital Research Global Investors, founded by some guy in Alabama, and the chairman is David I. Fisher, who I'm assuming is American, though I can't find the information with a quick search.
> 
> The point being that rich people are able to make profit from such wars. The war itself was designed to stop OPEC making a strong cartel again, Iraq, Venezuela and Libya have all been targeted, as well as Iran with sanctions (sanctions also aganst Venezuela) in order to weaken their ability to set oil prices where they wish to set oil prices.
> 
> Halliburton. Do I need to say much about the former VP's interest in this company?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before they got into the White House they were running on between $10 and $13 billion, this jumped to $18billion, meaning the Iraq War was making them at least $5 billion a year, which was, compared to 2002, an increase of $7.5 billion, nearly doubling their revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin stock prices.
> 
> I could go on.There's a lot of profit made by defense contractors. They made money because the US govt was buying their stuff for their war in Iraq which cost the US people a lot of money. Who funded this war? Well, people who pay taxes. Question is, did these companies pay more in taxes or did they receive more in profits? I'd go for the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might have a point had Cheney not sold all interests in Halliburton to run for VP.
> 
> Who denied Halliburton made money?  Of course they made money.   What business that you are aware of operates without making money?
> 
> Haliburton is the company used in nearly every one of our rebuilding projects since Vietnam.
> 
> So where is all this oil from Iraq that you speak of?  Need I post our imported oil showing that Iraq is way down the list?  Before fracking, we got most of our oil from Mexico and Canada.  Thanks to fracking (which liberals were always against) we are now independent of much foreign oil.
> 
> And who benefits most from lower oil prices?  Did you notice that our economy has improved slightly since the price of our fuel has dropped?  No, it wasn't the fake stimulus package or Commie Care.  It was because of lower fuel prices.
Click to expand...


Firstly Cheney "sold" his shares with a buy back option at the same price he sold them for. 
Secondly, just because you sell shares doesn't mean you aren't going to profit from this in the future. "Advisory" roles and such like which mean the person is paid huge sums of money for minimal or no work, 

Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain

"
*Cheney's Halliburton Ties Remain"

This from 2003. *
*"Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity."*

*The point here is this. Halliburton made money from the US govt spending tax money on a war. Not only Halliburton, many companies made lots of money from the US spending tax dollars.*
*
Now, if they're making money and paying LESS back then they're benefiting for US govt policies. They should be the ones paying for such policies, right? They should be the ones paying for the wars, not the normal people. I mean, what benefits did the normal person in the street get? Some did, from jobs in the defense industry or whatever, but no where near as much as the big companies made.*

*Now, ask yourself why so many people want to go to war in Iran. Put the lives of soldiers at risk for profit? I'd say this is sick, but they just see the $$$$$.*

*As for the oil from Iraq. This is the wrong question to ask.*
*As I said, it wasn't about getting money from Iraq. It was about reducing the impact of OPEC's cartelling policies. With Iraq pumping oil out, Libya doing the same, OPEC finds it harder (not impossible by any means) to set oil prices.*

*



*

*The argument about "where is the oil?" ignores the fact that the Chinese economy has grown MASSIVELY since 2000. *
*



*

*In 2000 China was consuming less than 5,000,000 barrels a day. In 2012 it had doubled. Supply and demand, you increase the demand for oil by five million barrels of oil a day, prices are going to go up. *

*IF China hadn't increased consumption, then perhaps the prices would be even lower than they are now. *

*Yes, I noticed that oil prices dropped and the economy has got better.*

*I also see a correlation between beef consumption and deaths caused by lightning. *

*



*

*Margarine consumption and the divorce rate in Maine.*

*



*

*Seriously, the economy is getting better because, hell, that's what economies do, they go into recession and they get better as long as there isn't a leader who is preventing the economy from getting better. *
*Oil prices have dropped because of the Saudi's using their production to decrease prices to try and harm US fracking operations.*

*Two separate things that have seen the economy increase and oil prices decrease and you're claiming they're cause and effect. *


----------



## 2aguy

You know…Haliburton has done work for every administration…right…….even the rapist clinton…and I would bet they also got contracts under obama…...


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.



What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
Click to expand...



See..now you are just throwing in the truth to make the lefties look stupid.......


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
Click to expand...


Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.

In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices. 

In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy. 

It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies. 

Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.
> 
> In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.
> 
> In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.
> 
> It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.
> 
> Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.
Click to expand...


We invaded a country for one vote in OPEC which is ever increasingly an irrelevant organization as their percent of the oil market continues to shrink with global oil exploration.  Tighten the tin foil, I think it's loose...


----------



## jon_berzerk

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.
> 
> In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.
> 
> In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.
> 
> It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.
> 
> Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We invaded a country for one vote in OPEC which is ever increasingly an irrelevant organization as their percent of the oil market continues to shrink with global oil exploration.  Tighten the tin foil, I think it's loose...
Click to expand...


--LOL 

well put


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez, I have to explain this almost every time.
> 
> In 1999 Hugo Chavez took over the leadership of Venezuela, but 2001 he had the leaders of OPEC strongly supporting his wish to make OPEC a strong cartel. This goes against the US's interests. They don't want OPEC controlling oil prices.
> 
> In 2002 the US helped with a coup against Hugo Chavez. In 2003 they invaded Iraq. Two of the four OPEC countries that oppose the US and were supporters of Chavez's policy.
> 
> It was about oil, not in the US getting oil from Iraq, but the US not having to put up with OPEC's strong cartel policies.
> 
> Right now it's the Saudis at the head of this policy. They can't rely on Iraq or Libya to follow them, so it's Iran, suffering from US imposed sanctions, so they need the money, and therefore need to pump out oil, hence why the sanctions are in place. The same with the sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Obama. However they seem to doing well enough as it is. The US sees the Saudis (and their lack of human rights and their craziness) as allies and won't do anything, so they target Iran and Venezuela, the two OPEC countries who oppose the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We invaded a country for one vote in OPEC which is ever increasingly an irrelevant organization as their percent of the oil market continues to shrink with global oil exploration.  Tighten the tin foil, I think it's loose...
Click to expand...


Increasingly irrelevant? Are you sure? The US govt felt it was relevant enough to take out Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez. 

I don't understand what you mean by "one vote in OPEC".

You seem to be trying to ignore what happened in 2003 and why.


----------



## kaz

Another shooting in Oregon, another gun free zone, another case where the only one who didn't follow the law was the criminal.   Did the left learn anything from this?  Um...no...


----------



## M14 Shooter

kaz said:


> Another shooting in Oregon, another gun free zone, another case where the only one who didn't follow the law was the criminal.   Did the left learn anything from this?  Um...no...


On the contrary -- things proceed according to their plan.


----------



## kaz

AVG-JOE

So, Joe, you're yet another liberal who keeps repeating the ridiculous idea that not being able to buy a gun legally means criminals can't get guns.  Why so, Joe?  In a country with 310 million guns and open borders, how are you going to keep them from criminals exactly?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
Click to expand...

Why did we go there if it was not about oil?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Another shooting in Oregon, another gun free zone, another case where the only one who didn't follow the law was the criminal.   Did the left learn anything from this?  Um...no...


That we need better aqueducts and better roads and more, well regulated militia?


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did we go there if it was not about oil?
Click to expand...


What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?


----------



## ClosedCaption

ClosedCaption said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Australia and the UK all have gun laws that we could rely on as positive foreign models.   They are not perfect, and gun crimes exist there, but not to the extent they do here.  Guns are everywhere in America, and so is gun violence. It's not some amazing coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where they will do their famous routine called: If a law hasn't stopped something 100% then its a waste of time
Click to expand...



I told ya'll this shit on page 3.  This is the classic republaccusers bait.  Ask for suggestions so all they have to do is pull the trigger and shoot down everyone elses stuff while not providing one suggestion themselves unless its "status quo"


----------



## Wildman

*GUN CONTROL LAW*

*those who are in control of the gun must not have evil intentions.* 

pretty simple and to the point.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did we go there if it was not about oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
Click to expand...

Special pleading much?  Iraq does not exist in a vacuum in the Middle East.  Just socialism bailing out the wealthiest under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## jillian

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?

i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.

as if any of them were 100%.

idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?
> 
> i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.
> 
> as if any of them were 100%.
Click to expand...

^^^
Clear indication that you do not understand the argument.


----------



## paulitician

Dumb assholes could quit handing firearms to their children. That means you, ya camo-wearing redneck fucktards.


*11-year-old charged with murdering 8-year-old after argument about puppies*

*An argument between two children over puppies turned tragic Saturday when an 11-year-old boy killed his 8-year-old neighbor with a shotgun, according to authorities in Jefferson County, Tenn.

The 11-year-old has been charged with first-degree murder in the girl’s death, Jefferson County Sheriff Bud McCoig told The Washington Post. Authorities aren’t releasing the names of either child, but Latasha Dyer told ABC affiliate WATE that her daughter, McKayla, was killed...

More:
11-year-old charged with murdering 8-year-old after argument about puppies
*


----------



## kaz

jillian said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?
> 
> i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.
> 
> as if any of them were 100%.
> 
> idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.
Click to expand...


So since you can't produce a 100% plan to meet your own ridiculous standard you won't produce any plan at all and claim victory


----------



## kaz

Delta4Embassy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?
Click to expand...


You seriously proposing that?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seriously proposing that?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. Why wouldn't we? Something good about an animal preying upon the weak we'd wanna keep them around?


----------



## kaz

Delta4Embassy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seriously proposing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Why wouldn't we? Something good about an animal preying upon the weak we'd wanna keep them around?
Click to expand...


Depends what you mean by "around."  On the streets?  No.  On the gun right side, we always agreed the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals was to keep them in jail.  I'll let you propose death, it doesn't matter either way, they aren't getting guns.

That doesn't protect you from the crazies though who don't have violent records.  The best way to allow you to do that is to allow you to arm yourself


----------



## Delta4Embassy

kaz said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seriously proposing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Why wouldn't we? Something good about an animal preying upon the weak we'd wanna keep them around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "around."  On the streets?  No.  On the gun right side, we always agreed the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals was to keep them in jail.  I'll let you propose death, it doesn't matter either way, they aren't getting guns.
> 
> That doesn't protect you from the crazies though who don't have violent records.  The best way to allow you to do that is to allow you to arm yourself
Click to expand...


Don't need to kneecap lawful gun owners trying to protect people from the bad evil ones if after they do something bad and evil you stick a needle in their arm.


----------



## Slyhunter

jillian said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?
> 
> i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.
> 
> as if any of them were 100%.
> 
> idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.
Click to expand...

outlawing drugs has worked so well.


----------



## jillian

Slyhunter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?
> 
> i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.
> 
> as if any of them were 100%.
> 
> idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> outlawing drugs has worked so well.
Click to expand...


thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?
> 
> i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.
> 
> as if any of them were 100%.
> 
> idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> outlawing drugs has worked so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?
Click to expand...

You, again, deliberately fail to grasp the argument.


----------



## easyt65

Obama May Use Executive Action To Impose More Gun Control

“The president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them. That’s something that is ongoing here.”

Josh Earnest: Obama may do executive action (again) on guns

It's real simple:
1. Name 1 law that would have prevented the Oregon shooting.
2. Name 1 new law that would have prevented the Oregon shooting.
3. Name 1 past or future law that Liberals could pass / impose that criminals would heed.

The answer to all 3 is ZERO, Zilch, Nada, None, Not a One!

Obama, while completely ignoring his hometown's record-setting year for gun violence because it does nothing for his agenda, openly admits he is politicizing the Oregon shooting to push his anti-gun agenda (while arming Mexican Drug Cartels, terrorists, and 'rebels'.  He pushes an emotional response, declaring we must do 'SOMETHING' while being completely UNABLE to give any response to the 3 questions above other than 'None / Nothing'. He, however, insists that HE and HE alone can save America by imposing his agenda on Americans and disarming law abiding citizens.

Hey Barry, why don't you try leading by example?  Order the schools your kids attend to become 'gun-free zones with guards who have no weapons. Make the WH a gun-free zone where not even your own security members can carry guns. Show us how disarming law abiding citizens (a category which you roughly fall into) are much safer having no ability to defend yourself or your loved ones!

The FACT is that a guard with a gun and having select teachers with concealed carry permits and weapons would have protected those people in Oregon and would have gone farther towards preventing that attack than any law that exists or that you can think of.

If you want to create a new law, though, go for it...and test it out on CRIMINALS ONLY 1st. If it works and it cuts down on their crimes THEN apply it to the law-abiding citizens.    Sound stupid? Yeah, about as much as your idea that imposing new laws would have stopped the shooting in Oregon or others in the future.


----------



## easyt65

jillian said:


> thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?



Robbery is already outlawed. Are people frisked, searched, or arrested BEFORE they commit a crime, just in case and in order to prevent robberies in the future? No...  You don't stop crime by targeting law-abiding citizens. Doing so does nothing to stop crime. It is a great example of how more gun control legislation - targeting law-abiding citizens before a crime occurs - will NOT stop shootings like in Oregon.


----------



## jillian

easyt65 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robbery is already outlawed. Are people frisked, searched, or arrested BEFORE they commit a crime, just in case and in order to prevent robberies in the future? No...  You don't stop crime by targeting law-abiding citizens. Doing so does nothing to stop crime. It is a great example of how more gun control legislation - targeting law-abiding citizens before a crime occurs - will NOT stop shootings like in Oregon.
Click to expand...


the point dear, is that the argument that requiring better gun laws won't work because "bad guys" won't listen to them is idiotic.


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robbery is already outlawed. Are people frisked, searched, or arrested BEFORE they commit a crime, just in case and in order to prevent robberies in the future? No...  You don't stop crime by targeting law-abiding citizens. Doing so does nothing to stop crime. It is a great example of how more gun control legislation - targeting law-abiding citizens before a crime occurs - will NOT stop shootings like in Oregon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point dear, is that the argument that requiring better gun laws won't work because "bad guys" won't listen to them is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Far less so than the idea that it is possible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.


----------



## easyt65

jillian said:


> the point dear, is that the argument that requiring better gun laws won't work because "bad guys" won't listen to them is idiotic.



The argument that more gun laws - which admittedly would NOT have stopped the Oregon shooting and will not stop such shootings in the future - won't work because criminals won't listen to them is a dumb / false argument to you, correct?!  WHY?

We have already established there is not 1 law that could have prevented the Oregon shooting specifically BECAUSE the shooter did not obey existing law.

We have already established that there is no law that WILL stop such shootings in the future because guys like this will NOT be deterred by additional laws.

Then HOW can you say that the FACT that criminals do not heed any existing and will not heed any future laws is a bad argument against the Liberal call for more anti-gun legislation that only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves?   I'm trying really hard to understand where you're coming from...


----------



## easyt65

If all it took to prevent crime was for a politician to pass a law making the crime illegal then we would not have robberies, murder, rape, assault, illegal immigration, etc would not be happening now.  If we could just get those pesky criminals to obey the law.  Maybe Obama's right...maybe we just haven't passed the 'RIGHT' laws that criminals will finally obey?!


----------



## regent

The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.


----------



## easyt65

regent said:


> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.



So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.

You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.

You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE  lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.

Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year.  Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.  


*BOTTOM LINE:*
The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).


----------



## regent

easyt65 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.
> 
> You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.
> 
> You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE  lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.
> 
> Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year.  Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM LINE:*
> The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
> Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
> Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
> Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
> Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).
Click to expand...

I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?


----------



## easyt65

regent said:


> I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?



It is not important or a necessity for you to understand the 'gun love affair'. It is legal and protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could do as they do in China, KSA, and elsewhere and execute violent criminals first offense. There some reason we want violent predators having the opportunity to reoffend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seriously proposing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Why wouldn't we? Something good about an animal preying upon the weak we'd wanna keep them around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by "around."  On the streets?  No.  On the gun right side, we always agreed the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals was to keep them in jail.  I'll let you propose death, it doesn't matter either way, they aren't getting guns.
> 
> That doesn't protect you from the crazies though who don't have violent records.  The best way to allow you to do that is to allow you to arm yourself
Click to expand...

Natural rights are already secured in State Conditions.  Why so much socialism?


----------



## danielpalos

regent said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.
> 
> You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.
> 
> You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE  lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.
> 
> Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year.  Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM LINE:*
> The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
> Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
> Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
> Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
> Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?
Click to expand...

If there is no social motive for free, there must be a capital motive for a price.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> The first problem is so many American's love guns.


Sorry that you don't enjoy freedom.


> That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA...


... because people who hate guns keep trying to impose that hatred on others by continually laying needles and mindless restriction on the right sf the law abiding.
That is, the NRA is powerful because you make it necessary,.


----------



## regent

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer, the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
I guess the first time I experienced this love affair was entering basic training. We newbies entered the barracks and told to pick our bunks, but so many of the new recruits instead ran to the rifle racks on the wall and began examining the locked rifles. Bunk location or locked rifle which seemed more important? I still remember the looks on those touching the rifles, curiosity or adoration I couldn't figure.


----------



## regent

That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer, the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
I guess the first time I experienced this love affair was entering basic training. We newbies entered the barracks and told to pick our bunks, but so many of the new recruits instead ran to the rifle racks on the wall and began examining the locked rifles. Bunk location or locked rifle which seemed more important? I still remember the looks on those touching the rifles, curiosity or adoration I couldn't figure.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.
> 
> You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.
> 
> You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE  lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.
> 
> Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year.  Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM LINE:*
> The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
> Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
> Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
> Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
> Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?
Click to expand...


What they should really study are the gun haters. 

I'm not much into NASCAR, so when I see it on television, I simply turn it off.  I don't call people who enjoy racing race car lovers or anything like that.  

If I go to a bar and it ends up being a sports or Karaoke bar, I don't question why people like such places, I simply go to another quieter bar. 

If my neighbor buys a bright canary yellow car, I don't care why he bought the car, I don't have to drive the ugly thing. 

It's too bad more of the country don't think like we conservatives.  If somebody else gets enjoyment out of something you don't, why should you care?


----------



## Baron

kaz said:


> The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



Liberals arm criminals but disarm law-abiding people.They do it because all criminals always vote for liberals.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Baron said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals arm criminals but disarm law-abiding people.They do it because all criminals always vote for liberals.
Click to expand...


It's a little deeper than that in my opinion.

Each party would love to expand their base.  One of the largest and strongest bases Democrats have are victims.  Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.

So for Democrats to expand their base, they need more victims besides the ones they already have.  You know, victims of big oil, victims of corporations, victims of Big Pharma, war on women and so on.

If Democrats were ever able to disarm law abiding Americans, we become victims to the armed criminals. 

How do victims combat something larger than them?  Big Government.

If we ever ran out of victims in this country, the Democrat party would only be mentioned in history books, and Democrats know that.  Democrats don't care about guns that much, they care about people being able to defend themselves and not needing government to do it for them.


----------



## Baron

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Democrats don't car about guns that much, they care about people being able to defend themselves and not needing government to do it for them.



We do not need a Big Government with Dems and RINOs.The Tea Party with the Holy Bible and lot of conservative churches are enough.A back to the Traditional Values will make America great again.Hopefully Donald knows it and will flush all leftists inventions down the toilet.


----------



## regent

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?


----------



## regent

Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?


----------



## danielpalos

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.
> 
> You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.
> 
> You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE  lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.
> 
> Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year.  Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM LINE:*
> The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
> Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
> Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
> Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
> Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they should really study are the gun haters.
> 
> I'm not much into NASCAR, so when I see it on television, I simply turn it off.  I don't call people who enjoy racing race car lovers or anything like that.
> 
> If I go to a bar and it ends up being a sports or Karaoke bar, I don't question why people like such places, I simply go to another quieter bar.
> 
> If my neighbor buys a bright canary yellow car, I don't care why he bought the car, I don't have to drive the ugly thing.
> 
> It's too bad more of the country don't think like we conservatives.  If somebody else gets enjoyment out of something you don't, why should you care?
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, here is the problem: gun lovers are simply too unwilling to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

*“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her. - ”G.K. Chesterton*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?



Maybe the idea that we can freely protect ourselves and others.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did we go there if it was not about oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
Click to expand...


I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.


----------



## kaz

jillian said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robbery is already outlawed. Are people frisked, searched, or arrested BEFORE they commit a crime, just in case and in order to prevent robberies in the future? No...  You don't stop crime by targeting law-abiding citizens. Doing so does nothing to stop crime. It is a great example of how more gun control legislation - targeting law-abiding citizens before a crime occurs - will NOT stop shootings like in Oregon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the point dear, is that the argument that requiring better gun laws won't work because "bad guys" won't listen to them is idiotic.
Click to expand...


What's idiotic is that you think that is what is being argued.  The point is that you are taking guns from honest citizens in your vain attempt to keep guns from criminals.  Stop doing that


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.



So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a problem with Americans loving guns. Got it.
> 
> You also have a problem with Americans freely donating their own money to the NRA....much like Pro-abortionists keep funding Planned Parenthood, that believes in the right to abort / murder a baby at any stage of an abortion, dissect it, and sell the parts of for cash and Lamborghinis...So in essence you oppose anyone giving money to organizations you disapprove of. Got it.
> 
> You have a problem with CONSERVATIVE  lobbyists but are ok with Liberal Lobbyists, such as those for Planned Parent hood that kick back MILLIONS to politicians to keep ensuring they can kill/dissect/sell baby parts at any point during pregnancy while receiving tax payer dollars to do so. Got it.
> 
> Perhaps if you recognized the fact that a MASSIVE number more of babies are murdered by an organization that dissects and sells the parts from dead babies - an organization that is PROTECTED by Liberals - than there are Americans killed by guns in this country each year.  Abortions kill far more human beings...but Liberals circled the wagons to ensure those murders continue while blaming an organization like the NRA for gun deaths in the US.
> 
> 
> *BOTTOM LINE:*
> The NRA did not kill the people in Oregon.
> Not one gun killed anyone in Oregon on its own.
> Not one existing law could prevent the attack in Oregon.
> Not one future law that could be passed could prevent such an attack.
> Despite these facts, Liberals / Obama demonize the NRA and want to pass new anti-gun laws (which they KNOW will do nothing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't understand why the gun-love affairs. Have any studies been done on this or is it all a mystery?
Click to expand...


that's because you're stupid, there isn't a love affair any more than carpenters have love affairs with power saws.  do you have a point on the OP post or you just going to keep masturbating?


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer, the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
> I guess the first time I experienced this love affair was entering basic training. We newbies entered the barracks and told to pick our bunks, but so many of the new recruits instead ran to the rifle racks on the wall and began examining the locked rifles. Bunk location or locked rifle which seemed more important? I still remember the looks on those touching the rifles, curiosity or adoration I couldn't figure.



If you only think of killing people when you think of guns then that's just you being a sick fuck.  You should be prohibited from buying a gun


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?



Obviously in your case, they would focus their marketing on phallic symbols since you're obsessed with them.  As for the rest of us, it's sporting (skeet, ...), hunting and defense.  For me it's also a collection, I have historical weapons passed down for generations.To confuse defense with attacking and harming people is sick.  You are mentally unbalanced that you do that.  Are you seeking professional help?  I hope so for the safety of those around you


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did we go there if it was not about oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.
Click to expand...


So we went over there for oil, but that we didn't take any isn't relevant to that?


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about protection. The invasion of Iraq wasn't about protection. It was about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did we go there if it was not about oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we went over there for oil, but that we didn't take any isn't relevant to that?
Click to expand...


No, again, it's ABOUT oil, not they went there for oil. See the difference?

Like I told you before. It was about making sure OPEC couldn't make a strong cartel.

Look at OPEC in 2000. 
Hugo Chavez was trying to bring them together to control production of all OPEC countries strictly so they could control oil prices. This clearly goes against US interests. Oil is an important part of the economy. 

Now, the US doesn't need to import oil from Iraq. It just needs oil prices to be lower worldwide. If Iraq increases production, the US can buy from Venezuela, Canada, Russia, whoever, for cheaper. 

There were four OPEC countries (out of 12) who seriously opposed the US in 2000. 

Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Libya. 

In 2002 the US helped a coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez. It failed. 
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq. 
In 2005 the US started a process of tougher sanctions against Iran, Bush froze assets in Iran. December 2006 sanctions were passed in the UN and the US barred an Iranian bank from dealing with the US. 

2010 the US impossed even tougher sanctions against Iran. 
Then in 2011 the US, under heavy pressure from John McCain, bombed Libya. 
There have also been tough sanctions against Venezuela recently. 

Compare this to no sanctions against the Saudis, no bombing, no invasions, nothing. Why? Oh, they're friends and the US won't do anything.

More action has been taken against the four OPEC countries since 2001 than against any other country.
Afghanistan was for other reasons, but helped in the "War on OPEC" because they're Muslim and the biggest players (except Venezuela) in OPEC are Muslim countries. So it was helping to prepare the way to taking out such countries.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we go there if it was not about oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "oil" did we ever get from Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told you this before, and you keep coming up with the same nonsense. It was ABOUT oil, it wasn't what oil the US got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we went over there for oil, but that we didn't take any isn't relevant to that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, again, it's ABOUT oil, not they went there for oil. See the difference?
> 
> Like I told you before. It was about making sure OPEC couldn't make a strong cartel.
> 
> Look at OPEC in 2000.
> Hugo Chavez was trying to bring them together to control production of all OPEC countries strictly so they could control oil prices. This clearly goes against US interests. Oil is an important part of the economy.
> 
> Now, the US doesn't need to import oil from Iraq. It just needs oil prices to be lower worldwide. If Iraq increases production, the US can buy from Venezuela, Canada, Russia, whoever, for cheaper.
> 
> There were four OPEC countries (out of 12) who seriously opposed the US in 2000.
> 
> Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Libya.
> 
> In 2002 the US helped a coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez. It failed.
> In 2003 the US invaded Iraq.
> In 2005 the US started a process of tougher sanctions against Iran, Bush froze assets in Iran. December 2006 sanctions were passed in the UN and the US barred an Iranian bank from dealing with the US.
> 
> 2010 the US impossed even tougher sanctions against Iran.
> Then in 2011 the US, under heavy pressure from John McCain, bombed Libya.
> There have also been tough sanctions against Venezuela recently.
> 
> Compare this to no sanctions against the Saudis, no bombing, no invasions, nothing. Why? Oh, they're friends and the US won't do anything.
> 
> More action has been taken against the four OPEC countries since 2001 than against any other country.
> Afghanistan was for other reasons, but helped in the "War on OPEC" because they're Muslim and the biggest players (except Venezuela) in OPEC are Muslim countries. So it was helping to prepare the way to taking out such countries.
Click to expand...


Oil is indirectly the cause of the invasion.  We are in the middle east because of oil.  That makes us the target of terrorists and their supporters like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.  But the proximate cause of the invasion was to provide stability and fight terror.  The idea that W, McCain and Obama are working together for oil is ridiculous and Iraq as I already pointed out wasn't worth actually invading for one of those votes.  OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization controlling a smaller and smaller percentage of the world's oil and they have thus an ever diminishing ability to control oil prices.  Spending hundreds of billions for that isn't a payback


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Oil is indirectly the cause of the invasion.  We are in the middle east because of oil.  That makes us the target of terrorists and their supporters like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.  But the proximate cause of the invasion was to provide stability and fight terror.  The idea that W, McCain and Obama are working together for oil is ridiculous and Iraq as I already pointed out wasn't worth actually invading for one of those votes.  OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization controlling a smaller and smaller percentage of the world's oil and they have thus an ever diminishing ability to control oil prices.  Spending hundreds of billions for that isn't a payback



I disagree about it being the indirect cause. Bush went in there for maybe more than one reason, however the main one was to disrupt the unity of OPEC. Why Iraq and not the others? Well Saddam being Saddam. Issues from his father's presidency will also be a factor. Saddam being a problem in the region will also be another reason. But not reason enough to go to war. WMDs were not an issue. They became an issue because Bush wanted them to become an issue. 

Yes, the US is in the Middle East because of the oil, and yes it makes the US a target. Why does the US need to be in the Middle East? Products are bought from all around the world. Why is oil so special? We both know why this is so. 

You think Bush went in to provide stability? If you do that makes him even more of a failure. 

The first thing here is, is it the presidents, or is it those who work behind the scenes and control presidents, control US politics with their money, and they get things to happen? How much would Bush have benefited compared to how much his benefactors would benefit? You get millions of dollars from people to become president, you then start handing out the favors right? 

Where does Obama come into this? If you look at the Libya situation you see John McCain putting immense amounts of pressure on Obama to bomb Libya. If you look at the Syria Civil War, you see McCain telling Obama NOT to invade, not to bomb. What's the difference between the two countries exactly? Both have dictators, both in the Middle East sort of area, one's OPEC the other isn't. Guess which one McCain went for!

Obama caved in. No doubt many advisers were telling him to do it too for whatever reason, how much pressure was put on Obama by big money and how much of the pressure came from Obama being a politician who wanted to come out smelling of roses. He saw the "Arab Spring", wanted to be associated with democracy and thought it would help, pressure comes to bomb from the right, he sees it from the political advantage side of it. A poor decision. 

What links Bush, McCain and Obama here? Maybe not much. I'd say McCain probably gets a lot of money from people with special interests, through PACs through other means. 

Sen. John McCain: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2016 | OpenSecrets

57% of what he earns for his campaign comes from large donations, 13% from PACs, "other" is 26%. In 2010 he raised $18 million. But it's not just money for his campaign, but also for the party as a whole. 

He gets money from pro-Israeli groups, for oil and gas industry, all sorts of things. So many ways to filter money into the pockets of the politicians, it's crazy.

OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization. Why? Iraq War, Libyan bombing, sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, that's why. However in 2000 Chavez was making good progress on making it much stronger. 







See oil prices rise around this time?


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is indirectly the cause of the invasion.  We are in the middle east because of oil.  That makes us the target of terrorists and their supporters like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.  But the proximate cause of the invasion was to provide stability and fight terror.  The idea that W, McCain and Obama are working together for oil is ridiculous and Iraq as I already pointed out wasn't worth actually invading for one of those votes.  OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization controlling a smaller and smaller percentage of the world's oil and they have thus an ever diminishing ability to control oil prices.  Spending hundreds of billions for that isn't a payback
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree about it being the indirect cause. Bush went in there for maybe more than one reason, however the main one was to disrupt the unity of OPEC. Why Iraq and not the others? Well Saddam being Saddam. Issues from his father's presidency will also be a factor. Saddam being a problem in the region will also be another reason. But not reason enough to go to war. WMDs were not an issue. They became an issue because Bush wanted them to become an issue.
> 
> Yes, the US is in the Middle East because of the oil, and yes it makes the US a target. Why does the US need to be in the Middle East? Products are bought from all around the world. Why is oil so special? We both know why this is so.
> 
> You think Bush went in to provide stability? If you do that makes him even more of a failure.
> 
> The first thing here is, is it the presidents, or is it those who work behind the scenes and control presidents, control US politics with their money, and they get things to happen? How much would Bush have benefited compared to how much his benefactors would benefit? You get millions of dollars from people to become president, you then start handing out the favors right?
> 
> Where does Obama come into this? If you look at the Libya situation you see John McCain putting immense amounts of pressure on Obama to bomb Libya. If you look at the Syria Civil War, you see McCain telling Obama NOT to invade, not to bomb. What's the difference between the two countries exactly? Both have dictators, both in the Middle East sort of area, one's OPEC the other isn't. Guess which one McCain went for!
> 
> Obama caved in. No doubt many advisers were telling him to do it too for whatever reason, how much pressure was put on Obama by big money and how much of the pressure came from Obama being a politician who wanted to come out smelling of roses. He saw the "Arab Spring", wanted to be associated with democracy and thought it would help, pressure comes to bomb from the right, he sees it from the political advantage side of it. A poor decision.
> 
> What links Bush, McCain and Obama here? Maybe not much. I'd say McCain probably gets a lot of money from people with special interests, through PACs through other means.
> 
> Sen. John McCain: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2016 | OpenSecrets
> 
> 57% of what he earns for his campaign comes from large donations, 13% from PACs, "other" is 26%. In 2010 he raised $18 million. But it's not just money for his campaign, but also for the party as a whole.
> 
> He gets money from pro-Israeli groups, for oil and gas industry, all sorts of things. So many ways to filter money into the pockets of the politicians, it's crazy.
> 
> OPEC is an ever decreasing powerful organization. Why? Iraq War, Libyan bombing, sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, that's why. However in 2000 Chavez was making good progress on making it much stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See oil prices rise around this time?
Click to expand...


Libya was Obama's decision, McCain didn't make him, that's ridiculous.  And the only reason Obama didn't attack Syria was that Putin outflanked him


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> [
> 
> Libya was Obama's decision, McCain didn't make him, that's ridiculous.  And the only reason Obama didn't attack Syria was that Putin outflanked him



I didn't say it wasn't Obama's decision, did I? 

What I did say was that Obama made the decision under pressure from McCain. Why did McCain put so much pressure on Obama over Libya and not Syria? Why did McCain not even bother talking about the Ivory Coast. You tell me.

No, Obama didn't not invade Syria because of Russia.

Look here. 

First clashes were 15th February 2011. 
The 27th February the anti-Gaddafi coalition formed. 

25th February, 10 days after it started

BBC - Mark Mardell's America: Too much or too little?

"Politicians, including John McCain and former, mainly Republican, officials from the left and right have written to president Obama, urging him to take tougher measures including introducing a no-fly zone over Libya, using the US Air Force to stop Col Gaddafi's jets from bombing their own people."



27th February and McCain is critical of Obama over Libya. We're talking 12 days after the first clashes. He was advocating supplying arms and bombing. 
Sens. McCain, Lieberman critical of Obama over Libya

He said the US should "stand up for Democracy" and ""America leads," McCain told CNN's "State of the Union" from Cairo. "They're looking to America for leadership, for assistance, for moral support and ratification of the sacrifices they've made in the defense of democracy. America should lead.""

""Get tough," McCain said. However, he stopped short of advocating that U.S. ground forces enter Libya to help oust Gadhafi. Instead, the United States should supply and equip a provisional government, McCain said."

McCain: No ground forces in Libya

Same day McCain said:

"I'm not ready to use ground forces," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

As if he were President. 

""Providing the so called provisional government … with the equipment and material they could use and the no fly zone I think could send a very strong message," he said on "Meet the Press." "I'm not ready to use ground forces or further intervention than that.""

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2011

McCain's press releases. 

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=4f232501-d649-45df-d2f8-629e4b6f5ebb

22nd February, "
*STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN AND LIEBERMAN CONDEMNING THE VIOLENCE IN LIBYA"*


*That's enough of that. Let's compare this to Syria.*

*It started on the 15th March 2011 with protests. Security forces fired on protesters. *


*Syrian rebels don't want U.S. aid, at least for now - Washington Times*


*McCain: No military solution to Syria crisis*

*27th April*

*"Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for sanctions and arrest warrants to be issued for Syria's President Bashar Assad and his inner circle, but said military intervention was not a solution to the crisis."

So, one month 12 days after it started McCain's saying no military action. No no fly zones, nothing but sanctions. *

*McCain talks about military options in Syria*

*October 2011, seven months AFTER it started and McCain's finally considering bombing Syria. Took him 12 days to consider bombing Libya.*

Why was McCain so different on putting pressure on Obama on these two different Civil Wars?


----------



## easyt65

If the Federal Government - the Liberals - want guns out of the hands of US citizens they should lead by example:

Demand the Secret Service no longer carry guns.  Prevent any security guarding Presidents, VPs, their families, Congress and their families - all of them - from carrying guns. The day we see that happen I will hand over mine..... Since it will never happen I have nothing to worry about.

And again, any new anti-gun legislation submitted should have to answer 'YES' to the following 3 questions before even being considered:
1. Would any law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
2. Would this NEW law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
3. Would criminals obey this law? (NO!)

Next....


----------



## kaz

easyt65 said:


> If the Federal Government - the Liberals - want guns out of the hands of US citizens they should lead by example:
> 
> Demand the Secret Service no longer carry guns.  Prevent any security guarding Presidents, VPs, their families, Congress and their families - all of them - from carrying guns. The day we see that happen I will hand over mine..... Since it will never happen I have nothing to worry about.
> 
> And again, any new anti-gun legislation submitted should have to answer 'YES' to the following 3 questions before even being considered:
> 1. Would any law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
> 2. Would this NEW law have prevented the Oregon shooting? (NO!)
> 3. Would criminals obey this law? (NO!)
> 
> Next....



Good point, since citizens are then safe from guns, the police won't need them either


----------



## easyt65

frigidweirdo said:


> Why was McCain so different on putting pressure on Obama on these two different Civil Wars?



Who the hail cares what McCain says or doesn't say or what kind of 'pressure' McCain can assert?!  You REALLY think the old, white Rhino fart could put any kind of pressure that would make Obama do something?


Libya was ALL OBAMA!  Obama, just like he would do later in Syria, armed TERRORISTS - guys who had been recruiting for about a decade from Libya jihadists from all over to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. THEN he took the country to war ON HIS OWN to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12) - take over their own country - LIBYA...and all it cost us was the lives of 4 Americans, to include the 1st US Ambassador to be killed in over 30 years!  (Can you say 'Treason'?!)

McCain sure as hell didn't "FORCE' Obama to go to war on his own to help Al Qaeida!  OBAMA was President, not McCain. Only the President can take a country to war on his own, not McCain! I am so sick of this blame-shifting B$! Obama's a big boy, and he's proved time and again he's man enough to do whatever he wants no matter what....he just hasn't proven he's man enough to take responsibility yet.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer,


Mindless partisan bigotry.


> the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.


More mindless partisan bigotry


----------



## regent

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
Click to expand...

If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings. To come up with solutions is not the job of these boards; That is why we employ legislators to solve problems. But why would legislators try to solve the problem when so many people love their guns and  the NRA is such an effective lobby?


----------



## easyt65

regent said:


> ... That is why we employ legislators to solve problems. But why would legislators try to solve the problem when so many people love their guns and  the NRA is such an effective lobby?



Just remember that those same elected officials demonstrated the complete insane lack of common sense God gave a door knob by handing over THOUSANDS of assault weapons AND GRENADES to Mexican Drug Cartels KNOWING that one they handed these weapons over they would NOT be able to track, control, or recover them...resulting in the deaths of more than 350 people (so far), to include 1 US Border Patrol Agent and a member of the United States military!

(1/2 way joking...) Based on this, I am all  for complete gun control - politicians / this administration should not only NOT be allowed to handle fire arms with out appropriate supervision but should not be able to tell US what needs to be done to solve gun violence.


----------



## peach174

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That some American men seem to have some kind of love affair or need for guns is becoming clearer,
> 
> 
> 
> Mindless partisan bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> the next question is why, not the defense or Constitution thing but why, really why. Is it the manhood rite of passage or fear or just what creates this seemingly love for a piece of metal that can kill people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More mindless partisan bigotry
Click to expand...


Exactly, they always spew that BS and totally ignore how many millions of women own guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.
Click to expand...

As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
The only way to stop this:   Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
Then be prepared to go after knives....


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
> The only way to stop this:   Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
> Then be prepared to go after knives....
Click to expand...

Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.


I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
-Prevents criminals from getting guns
-Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
When you find one, let me know.


----------



## Ernie S.

jillian said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep teenagers from having sex.... whats yours?
> 
> i'm so bored with gun obsessed loons trying to say that guns shouldn't be regulated because some bad guys will still get guns but never once question drunk driving laws, criminal statutes or any other law that governs criminal behavior.
> 
> as if any of them were 100%.
> 
> idiotic question... but typical rightwnignut garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> outlawing drugs has worked so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for focusing on drugs. how about robbery? should it not be outlawed because criminals don't listen to the law?
Click to expand...

Murder is already against the law. Cars aren't illegal despite being the preferred means of getting away from the bank.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.


Gun makers already have a civil responsibility to provide a product that is safe to operate and works as intended. Car manufacturers have the identical civil responsibility. If a car fails due to a manufacturing defect and kills someone, the company should and will be held liable.
The same with a gun. IF a gun malfunctions and someone is hurt or killed as a result, the company should and will be liable.
Now, if you get drunk and hop in your Prius and mow down some kids at the bus stop, how can Toyota be held responsible?
Doesn't Smith and Wesson deserve the same consideration?


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
> -Prevents criminals from getting guns
> -Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
> When you find one, let me know.
Click to expand...

As mentioned that is the job of the legislators, but why should legislators  even touch that problem? Most legislators know of America's love affair with the gun and they know the NRA is making sure that there is no third party in that love affair. How many guns will be sold in the US this year because people are frightened by people with guns? Is there a correlation between the number of guns in America and the needless deaths by guns? Are we using fear to sell more guns that creates more fear?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Ernie S. said:


> Now, if you get drunk and hop in your Prius and mow down some kids at the bus stop, how can Toyota be held responsible?
> Doesn't Smith and Wesson deserve the same consideration?


I asked the same question,
All I heard in response was the chirping of crickets.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?


Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
> -Prevents criminals from getting guns
> -Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
> When you find one, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As mentioned that is the job of the legislators, but why should legislators  even touch that problem?
Click to expand...

So...  you have heard of no such proposal for a law.
Thank you.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?


Why are you posting this crap twice?


----------



## regent

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
Click to expand...

So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support any and every gun control law that does 2 tings:
> -Prevents criminals from getting guns
> -Does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding
> When you find one, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As mentioned that is the job of the legislators, but why should legislators  even touch that problem? Most legislators know of America's love affair with the gun and they know the NRA is making sure that there is no third party in that love affair. How many guns will be sold in the US this year because people are frightened by people with guns? Is there a correlation between the number of guns in America and the needless deaths by guns? Are we using fear to sell more guns that creates more fear?
Click to expand...


So who is creating the fear?  Democrats, that's who.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
> The only way to stop this:   Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
> Then be prepared to go after knives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.
Click to expand...


That's like asking Microsoft to do something about people going to kiddy porn sites or sites that don't charge state tax for internet sales.  It's not their responsibility.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
Click to expand...

Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
> The only way to stop this:   Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
> Then be prepared to go after knives....
Click to expand...



*UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’*
Posted on September 15, 2015 by Bob Livingston

UK police behind effort to ban knives to end ‘knife violence’


----------



## regent

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
Click to expand...

Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."


----------



## Ernie S.

You are doing nothing to affect it so as not to offend the Democrat base. Instead, you propose something that would only serve to hinder the opposition. It's rather obvious what your intentions are to any rational, thinking person..


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
Click to expand...

Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?


----------



## regent

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

regent said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You gave me one of your life's stories and I gave you one back. How should I have responded  to your experience with weapons, in awe, sad, angry or what. I gotta be honest life stories as evidence are not good sources.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The vacuum you live in suck out all your remaining brain calls? Or is the empty post your concession?


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave me one of your life's stories and I gave you one back. How should I have responded  to your experience with weapons, in awe, sad, angry or what. I gotta be honest life stories as evidence are not good sources.
Click to expand...

The point is, with all that exposure to guns, neither me, my father or my children have used a gun to commit a crime.
Perhaps more exposure, rather than less is the answer.
Or maybe just having a father in the home is all that's needed. Or is it the fact that my father and I raised out children to be responsible about everything, including firearms?

OH I know! EBT cards cause gun crimes.


----------



## regent

Ernie S. said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? I suspect many gun owners are like me. I was exposed to them early. From my earliest memories, there was always a weapon standing up by the back door. It was a tool with which to kill food. I knew damned well not to touch it. I don't remember how I learned that, but I just did. When I was 8, I was allowed to target shoot under my father's supervision and by nine I was an expert marksman.
> At 12, I bought my first gun and at 14, started hunting unsupervised with a shotgun I purchased with money I earned. (not from an allowance)
> No right of passage involved. I never received a weapon from my father until shortly before his death. I still own his weapons and they are stored and maintained along with my own weapons.
> My first wife was raised about the same way, though never got in to hunting.
> My children were a bit older when first exposed and the 12 gauge by the door was not there because there was no game running down the street in the city of Bridgeport CT.  There was a revolver and a Colt 1911 hidden from view due to the strong possibility of break ins due to the urban setting.
> I did take them up to Dad's frequently to shoot and learn how to handle a weapon safely.
> All 4 have owned their own weapons and the 3 that survive all have CT pistol permits and are normally armed. The tattoo artist carries one his hip in his studio, the firefighter carries to and from his job in another urban setting, but does not carry on the job more out of respect for his firearms than for the sensibilities of Connecticut Liberals.
> My daughter, the sweetest thing you'll ever meet will reach in her purse and shoot you dead in a heartbeat if you threaten her person or property.
> Right of passage? No. Call it a cultural thing that you can't condone, if you will; kind of like the crime in the inner city which you seem to excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave me one of your life's stories and I gave you one back. How should I have responded  to your experience with weapons, in awe, sad, angry or what. I gotta be honest life stories as evidence are not good sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, with all that exposure to guns, neither me, my father or my children have used a gun to commit a crime.
> Perhaps more exposure, rather than less is the answer.
> Or maybe just having a father in the home is all that's needed. Or is it the fact that my father and I raised out children to be responsible about everything, including firearms?
> 
> OH I know! EBT cards cause gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Good for you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

easyt65 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was McCain so different on putting pressure on Obama on these two different Civil Wars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hail cares what McCain says or doesn't say or what kind of 'pressure' McCain can assert?!  You REALLY think the old, white Rhino fart could put any kind of pressure that would make Obama do something?
> 
> 
> Libya was ALL OBAMA!  Obama, just like he would do later in Syria, armed TERRORISTS - guys who had been recruiting for about a decade from Libya jihadists from all over to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill US troops. THEN he took the country to war ON HIS OWN to help Al Qaeida - perpetrators of 9/11/01 (and 9/11/12) - take over their own country - LIBYA...and all it cost us was the lives of 4 Americans, to include the 1st US Ambassador to be killed in over 30 years!  (Can you say 'Treason'?!)
> 
> McCain sure as hell didn't "FORCE' Obama to go to war on his own to help Al Qaeida!  OBAMA was President, not McCain. Only the President can take a country to war on his own, not McCain! I am so sick of this blame-shifting B$! Obama's a big boy, and he's proved time and again he's man enough to do whatever he wants no matter what....he just hasn't proven he's man enough to take responsibility yet.
Click to expand...


Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth. 

On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.

Oh well.


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings. To come up with solutions is not the job of these boards; That is why we employ legislators to solve problems. But why would legislators try to solve the problem when so many people love their guns and  the NRA is such an effective lobby?
Click to expand...


What you're saying about the NRA is the leftist equivalent to the right characterizing PP as strictly an abortion clinic.  The main activity of the NRA by far is to teach people to use guns safely and appropriately for self defense.  You'd know that if you actually knew anything about guns as you claim.  Their lobbying activities are just to make sure we have guns for those uses


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first problem is so many American's love guns. That love affair keeps money flowing into the NRA and that lobby aids the manufacturers of guns to fight any gun laws. Until the gun manufacturers are forced to share some responsibility for their products as do auto, drug and other manufacturers, we will not change. It all begins with the American gun-love affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So our choices are we have a "love affair" with guns or we'll let you disarm us and leave us as undefended prey to criminals.  Hmm.  Your choices are you're an idiot or ...  sorry, that's all I've got
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the only solution then this nation is in trouble. If gun manufacturers put some effort and money into trying to solve the problem instead of relying on the NRA to keep the government at bay maybe something could be worked out that would reduce the spur of the moment, and the gang killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as people have guns, people will murder people with guns.
> The only way to stop this:   Destroy all guns and destroy all the means to make them.
> Then be prepared to go after knives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Few suggest that all auto accidents will be ended with safer cars, it is the reduction of deaths with safer cars that is the goal. That should be the goal of gun manufacturers and government, reduction of needless gun deaths.
Click to expand...


Making guns safer is the job of the NRA, and they do a great job.  It's also the job of the people to teach our kids to use them safely, and we overwhelmingly do a great job of that too.  Very little of the violence could be stopped by gun manufacturers.  Just like very little of the violence is stopped by gun laws.  They are already illegal in inner cities, yet that's where most of the violence occurs.


----------



## gipper

Leftist Think:

GUNS kill people.

ABORTION does not.


----------



## easyt65

frigidweirdo said:


> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.


 

WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?! 
(Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)

And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!


----------



## kaz

easyt65 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
Click to expand...


the idea the Republicans have made obama do anything in ridiculous, he was the one rattling sabers


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
Click to expand...


It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.

The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.


----------



## frigidweirdo

easyt65 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
Click to expand...


Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician. 

Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
Click to expand...


Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I condoned crime in the inner city? I grew up in Bridgeport a part of Chicago's South side, home of the, now gone, Chicago stockyards, or as Sinclair called it "The Jungle."
> 
> 
> 
> Really? is that all you have? You can only carry one thought at a time? There was a lot in my post you could have answered, criticized or at least commented on, yet you pick on one sentence that Mother Jones prepared you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gave me one of your life's stories and I gave you one back. How should I have responded  to your experience with weapons, in awe, sad, angry or what. I gotta be honest life stories as evidence are not good sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, with all that exposure to guns, neither me, my father or my children have used a gun to commit a crime.
> Perhaps more exposure, rather than less is the answer.
> Or maybe just having a father in the home is all that's needed. Or is it the fact that my father and I raised out children to be responsible about everything, including firearms?
> 
> OH I know! EBT cards cause gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you.
Click to expand...

Why did I know you would have nothing of substance to add?


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
Click to expand...

If McCain and the GOP had any influence over obama, there would be no ACA. the argument is bullshit. The tin pot dictator will either force somrthing trough Congress with bribes, threats or rules changes or issue another "executive order".


----------



## regent

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.
> 
> The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.
Click to expand...

I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.
> 
> The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.
Click to expand...

The profit of gun makers is irrelevant to the number of children being blown away.
What is more relevant is children being born to children, children growing up in a home without a strong father figure, children growing up exposed to a gangster culture that glorifies raping women, shooting law enforcement officers and declares that one color life is all that matters.
What would help is responsible people that pay their own way through life instead of expecting Uncle Sam to reward their irresponsibility.
I've told you all several times in the last week that I have a proposal that would reduce gun related homicides in Chicago by 70% by the first of the year. No one has asked for the solution.


----------



## Vigilante

The only plan liberals have is to RUN THEIR MOUTHS and DO NOTHING...the perfect example of LIBERAL GUN CONTROL....


----------



## Vigilante

Remember these are the same assholes that say we can't DEPORT 10 million ILLEGALS, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.
> 
> The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.
Click to expand...


Strawman.  It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns.  Not you of course, the rest of us.  It's stupid, bro


----------



## regent

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we may not care much for the reasons why people buy certain objects but manufacturers may be very interested. I would think some companies some spend money on discovering why people buy automobiles, shaving lotion, and guns, Be interesting to know what Colt has discovered about the attraction of guns. If it was the macho thing, I don't think they would tell us but you can bet their advertisements would reflect the attraction. What is the attraction of guns? Is it fear, rite of passage, or even to have more strength than others?
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.
> 
> The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns.  Not you of course, the rest of us.  It's stupid, bro
Click to expand...

Not the rest of us, but enough of the rest of us to make it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. Probably most of us have love affairs of some types for inanimate objects, antiques, fast cars, polo mallets, but with guns it can be costly.  Look at this thread for examples, of course no one is likely to say, I love guns but you might do your homework and do some research on America's love affair with guns.  If we do have a love affair with guns, why? What need does it fill?


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.
> 
> The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns.  Not you of course, the rest of us.  It's stupid, bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the rest of us, but enough of the rest of us to make it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. Probably most of us have love affairs of some types for inanimate objects, antiques, fast cars, polo mallets, but with guns it can be costly.  Look at this thread for examples, of course no one is likely to say, I love guns but you might do your homework and do some research on America's love affair with guns.  If we do have a love affair with guns, why? What need does it fill?
Click to expand...

Meaningful legislation that infringes upon the rights of the law abiding while having nearly zero impact on its goal is hardly meaningful. Propose something, ANYTHING that stands a chance in hell of preventing the next school shooting and I may listen. Registration and private sale background checks have been discarded. Come up with something that will work, PLEASE.


----------



## regent

Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.



The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect.  Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
Click to expand...


I disagree. 

Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started. 

Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria. 

I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this. 
The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did. 

But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.


----------



## regent

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect.  Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.
Click to expand...

Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

regent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect.  Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
> As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.
Click to expand...


the NRA was sending hate mail?  Any reliable link to that?

If criminals can get access to guns, what's stopping them from getting access to the wrist bands that belong with the gun?

That's besides the fact that in a self-defense situation such as an intruder breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't have time to fool around with technology.  You need a gun and you probably need it within a matter of a few seconds.


----------



## regent

Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect.  Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
> As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the NRA was sending hate mail?  Any reliable link to that?
> 
> If criminals can get access to guns, what's stopping them from getting access to the wrist bands that belong with the gun?
> 
> That's besides the fact that in a self-defense situation such as an intruder breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't have time to fool around with technology.  You need a gun and you probably need it within a matter of a few seconds.
Click to expand...




Ray From Cleveland said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect.  Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
> As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the NRA was sending hate mail?  Any reliable link to that?
> 
> If criminals can get access to guns, what's stopping them from getting access to the wrist bands that belong with the gun?
> 
> That's besides the fact that in a self-defense situation such as an intruder breaking into your home in the middle of the night, you don't have time to fool around with technology.  You need a gun and you probably need it within a matter of a few seconds.
Click to expand...

The NRA doesn't have to send hate mail it only posts the latest news and bingo. It was only a beginning like one wheel brakes.


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.


The gun manufacturers ARE responsible. They provide a tool that works as it is designed to work; that does exactly what the consumer wants it to do. Because people occasionally use it to commit murder, does not make the manufacturer at fault or in the least bit culpable. NOW, if someone came at me with a knife and I drew my weapon in self defense and it failed to make a loud scary noise which resulted in me getting stabbed, THEN the gun manufacturer could be held liable.
Is Estwing held liable because its hammers occasionally bend nails?


----------



## Ernie S.

regent said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time we hold the manufacturers of other tools responsible for their product is when there is a defect.  Other than that, we don't sue the people that make hammers when we hit ourselves on the hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps shooting innocent people could be classified as a defect?
> As some may know one company was working on a "Smart Gun" that shoots only when the shooter is using a wrist band that communicates with the gun. One store began selling the smart gun and then received hate mail and threats and dropped selling the gun. Nobody fools with the NRA.
Click to expand...

My GOD man! My gun sits on my night stand at night. I would likely never get used to wearing a wrist band or suppose I did get used to wearing it and someone came when I was gone and my wife couldn't operate the weapon to defend HER self? THAT my friend is what you want isn't it? To make guns so inconvenient and difficult to use that people give up purchasing them for self defense?
There are already 310 million "dumb" guns out there now. Do you propose we retrofit them all with this technology? Or maybe just those you can trace through data collected through "universal background checks"?
FIX THE DAMNED PROBLEM. The problem is the person attached to the trigger finger of the murder weapon, not the weapon itself.
What do you suggest that might actually work?


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith and Wesson makes pink guns. Would that work for you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you see guns as a passage to manhood? I wonder if it is possible to become an adult male, strong and brave without gun, I suspect many do it without the crutch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how many of you liberals claim to have military service and be experienced with guns, yet this is your childish, bigoted attitude towards anyone who supports gun rights.  But it's not your attitude of course, it's everyone else.
> 
> The idea anyone with your attitude would be in the military or even shoot a gun is scary.  Fortunately, your idiotic views are because you're a blue city slicker who hasn't ever touched a gun and wouldn't because they are magic firing sticks that emanate evil to you.  You just have the stupid liberal notion that it's a powerful argument to say you're one of us, so it's OK to hate guns and gun users.  I know guns, so it's OK to hate them.  I am a Republican, so it's OK to think they are all racist.  You try it all the time.  Trust me, it never works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I spent most of my military in the Pacific during WWii as a PFC infantry. My division had over 300 days of combat on New Guinea and Luzon including recapture of Bataan. I came home a little early on the good ship "Bountiful" and by the time we arrived at Letterman the war was over. That has nothing to do with wanting an effective gun control. Something is wrong when a society allows its children to be blown away to keep manufacturers in the bucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  It has to do with your view that gun right advocates have a romantic relationship with our guns.  Not you of course, the rest of us.  It's stupid, bro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the rest of us, but enough of the rest of us to make it difficult to pass meaningful legislation. Probably most of us have love affairs of some types for inanimate objects, antiques, fast cars, polo mallets, but with guns it can be costly.  Look at this thread for examples, of course no one is likely to say, I love guns but you might do your homework and do some research on America's love affair with guns.  If we do have a love affair with guns, why? What need does it fill?
Click to expand...


Just more of your ridiculous bigotry


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> Until some responsibility is put on the gun manufacturers I doubt if there is a solution. America puts all kinds of responsibilities on other tools, and on the one tool used, and meant to kill, we have nothing of value.



Ridiculous, guns operate as designed.  None of these issues are in the control of gun manufacturers.  You just want to put them out of business with liability since you can't do it legislatively.  That will solve nothing as foreign gun makers will just take up the slack.

the idea you're experienced with guns is as ridiculous as that you actually know any gun owners.  I know lots of them and they are normal people, unlike the fantasy in your liberal elitist city slicker head.  Your country experience is based on a week you spent at a dude ranch


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
Click to expand...


Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.

And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? I would assume people who are interested in the truth.
> On the other hand we have you, who just seem interested in partisan bull.
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
> 
> And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror
Click to expand...


No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me. 

McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.

Do you understand these simple concepts? 

Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens. 

Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.

This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff. 

Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.


----------



## Kosh

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
> 
> And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.
> 
> McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.
> 
> Do you understand these simple concepts?
> 
> Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.
> 
> Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.
> 
> This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
> This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.
> 
> Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.
Click to expand...


WOW these far left drones promote all kinds of propaganda in order to hide the fact that they support Obama's illegal wars. I mean they believe the Iraq war in 2003 was the cause for 9/11..

I mean come on, how can these far left drones function in society..


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing like using socialism to bailout wealthy capitalists,like usual


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHO CARES? I thought you said people want to know the TRUTH...then Liberals push the idea that John McCain FORCED Obama to help invade Libya on his own to help Al Qaeida take over Libya?!
> (Yeah, THAT'S searching for / proposing 'Truth'!  No, that's call more Obama 'Blame-Shifting'!)
> 
> And you accuse ME of 'partisan bull' when YOU and other Liberals try to blame OBAMA'S WAR on McCain?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
> 
> And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.
> 
> McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.
> 
> Do you understand these simple concepts?
> 
> Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.
> 
> Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.
> 
> This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
> This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.
> 
> Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.
Click to expand...


If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.


Obama looked for a way out of nothing.  He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt.  You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything.  He's W


----------



## Kosh

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
> 
> And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.
> 
> McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.
> 
> Do you understand these simple concepts?
> 
> Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.
> 
> Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.
> 
> This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
> This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.
> 
> Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.
> 
> 
> Obama looked for a way out of nothing.  He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt.  You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything.  He's W
Click to expand...


And back into Iraq and he is worse than W..


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say "FORCED"? No, I did not. I said he put pressure on Obama. Obama being the quintessential politician who does what is required to be a popular politician.
> 
> Are you saying that without the Republicans breathing down Obama's neck on this issue that he would have bombed Libya anyway? No, you're not. You're merely attacking. If you have a point to make, make it, if not, feck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
> 
> And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.
> 
> McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.
> 
> Do you understand these simple concepts?
> 
> Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.
> 
> Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.
> 
> This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
> This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.
> 
> Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.
> 
> 
> Obama looked for a way out of nothing.  He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt.  You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything.  He's W
Click to expand...


Rubbish, don't give me that nonsense. It's no my fault you seem to be trying to simplify everything down to a level that's just too simple.

Obama didn't get anyone into Egypt. The US has stayed out of Egypt for the most part, interfering when it suits on a political level. Syria has been political too, with air bombing of ISIS. Both sides seem to think this is acceptable. However the right wanted troops on the ground. So.... I'd say this is being out. Obama stayed out of the Syrian civil war.

Afghanistan was going balls up under Bush. The first few years Bush had less violence because the Taliban were hit badly, but then they came back, the increase in popularity caused by Bush's warmongering helped their recruitment. But Bush had been steadily increasing troops in Afghanistan.







The problem was he didn't have enough there to stop the violence, to bring the stability that Afghanistan needed. The US was already in Afghanistan, Obama simply put in place a policy that was more likely to bring about a solution to the problem, without simply just leaving the Afghans to pick up the mess on their own.

Then again you can see the problem with this chart






As troop numbers dropped in Iraq, troop numbers in Afghanistan were increased. Basically the US can't fight on two fronts at the same time. Bush had decided to leave Iraq, and the withdrawal signed, so troops could go and try and stabilize Afghanistan.

But again, just because he put more troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean he escalated the war. The war was being escalated there by the resurgent Taliban, which was getting a massive recruitment drive from Bush's time in office.

Iraq had been the place to go fight the US, now it's Afghanistan where you can find more US troops.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he would have attacked anyway.  And even more so Syria if Putin hadn't bitch slapped him.  McCain had nothing to do with it, it was Obama.  Seriously, if liberals crap in your pants it was the fault of Republicans, you're responsible for nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Obama's policy has been one of withdrawing from the supposed "war on terror" that Bush started.
> 
> Possibly Obama went into Libya because of the whole Arab Spring thing, but it seems very telling that McCain was so vocal and so quick to be vocal on Libya, and Obama went into Libya, and so slow and so not caring on Syria, and Obama didn't go into Syria.
> 
> I'm not looking for whose fault it is, I'm not looking to play silly childish games here. I'm discussing WHAT HAPPENED, looking for THE TRUTH. I'm saying what I see. Not passing out blame. Obama was the one who bombed Libya, ultimately he is responsible for this.
> The questions I am trying to answer is why. Also I'm looking at whether this was Obama slipping into politician mode and not following what seems to have been a fairly steady policy of reversing what Bush did.
> 
> But then all you see if some pathetic game that is destroying the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you are playing the blame game, you are blaming McCain for Libya and Syria, which is ridiculous.  Obama does nothing the Republicans want and doesn't have to because his lap dog media just blames Republicans for whatever happens.
> 
> And seroiusly, Obama is "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?"  Are you serious?  He maintained W's plan in Iraq, expanded Afghanistan, attacked Libya, wanted to attack Syria until Putin undercut his chance and meddled in Egypt.  He's W, Holmes.  And you're not a Democrat? With the endless slanting and excuse making for Obama and the Democrats?  You need to take a closer look in the mirror
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, this is another you're reading badly into what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that McCain did this. Just because you're decided that this is the case, doesn't make it so. You're debating with ME, not with anyone else, and you can't just use arguments you use against those other people again with me.
> 
> McCain played his part in Syria and Libya. Of course he did. Politics isn't just Obama making a decision out of the blue without anything else happening. At the same time he's the guy who gives the orders.
> 
> Do you understand these simple concepts?
> 
> Obama "does nothing the Republicans want" because if Obama does it, then the Republicans decide they're not going to fight for it. All you see is what Obama and the Republicans fight over, then make the silly assumption that nothing else happens.
> 
> Am I serious about "withdrawing from the supposed 'war on terror'?". Yes I am.
> 
> This doesn't mean Obama just pulled out. This doesn't mean Obama just stopped fighting this wars that Bush started.
> This means Obama looked for a way out. He got out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. He's getting close to closing Guantanamo. He stopped using inflammatory language that Bush used, he tried to use dialogue with other countries rather than Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stuff.
> 
> Obama isn't going to just break everything up instantly. That doesn't mean he isn't pulling the US back from being anti-Muslim as much as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you said the sky is blue and I said you said the sky is blue you'd say no it isn't.
> 
> 
> Obama looked for a way out of nothing.  He finished W's timeline in Iraq, he EXPANDED Afghanistan and he got us into Libya, Syria and Egypt.  You're delusional that you think he's getting us out of anything.  He's W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubbish, don't give me that nonsense. It's no my fault you seem to be trying to simplify everything down to a level that's just too simple.
> 
> Obama didn't get anyone into Egypt. The US has stayed out of Egypt for the most part, interfering when it suits on a political level. Syria has been political too, with air bombing of ISIS. Both sides seem to think this is acceptable. However the right wanted troops on the ground. So.... I'd say this is being out. Obama stayed out of the Syrian civil war.
> 
> Afghanistan was going balls up under Bush. The first few years Bush had less violence because the Taliban were hit badly, but then they came back, the increase in popularity caused by Bush's warmongering helped their recruitment. But Bush had been steadily increasing troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was he didn't have enough there to stop the violence, to bring the stability that Afghanistan needed. The US was already in Afghanistan, Obama simply put in place a policy that was more likely to bring about a solution to the problem, without simply just leaving the Afghans to pick up the mess on their own.
> 
> Then again you can see the problem with this chart
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As troop numbers dropped in Iraq, troop numbers in Afghanistan were increased. Basically the US can't fight on two fronts at the same time. Bush had decided to leave Iraq, and the withdrawal signed, so troops could go and try and stabilize Afghanistan.
> 
> But again, just because he put more troops in Afghanistan doesn't mean he escalated the war. The war was being escalated there by the resurgent Taliban, which was getting a massive recruitment drive from Bush's time in office.
> 
> Iraq had been the place to go fight the US, now it's Afghanistan where you can find more US troops.
Click to expand...


Exactly, obama was in Egypt's shit politically.  And your justification why you support Obama (yet again) on Afghanistan increasing troops and extending the timeline wasn't the point being discussed.  The point you made and I challenged was Obama was trying to get us out of messes.  You just gave zero examples of him getting out out of anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> Exactly, obama was in Egypt's shit politically.  And your justification why you support Obama (yet again) on Afghanistan increasing troops and extending the timeline wasn't the point being discussed.  The point you made and I challenged was Obama was trying to get us out of messes.  You just gave zero examples of him getting out out of anything.



The thing is the US is in politically in a lot of places. All presidents have done it, and people are getting increasingly annoyed. Latin America is a mess because the US messed around there for more than a hundred years, and made massive profits out of it.
Money comes first in most cases. 

Obama has put US diplomacy forward more than Bush did, he's more liked than Bush abroad, except in Russia and China. Russia it's clear why, Putin feels more comfortable dealing with someone like Bush who just makes the Russian's lives easier by messing up a lot. Obama is also black, and the Russians aren't exactly known for being pro-black. China isn't about the US at all. It's about internal Chinese politics of using the US (and Japan) to enhance the popularity of the CCP at home.

The point wasn't Obama trying to get out of messes. The point was not getting in them in the first place. I said he was pulling back from being confrontational. You have interpreted this as meaning that as pulling out of Afghanistan, or lowering troops numbers, I don't. 
What I'm saying is Obama pulled back. He stopped vilifying Muslims at every opportunity with simple phrases "al Qaeda" (for any Muslim group the US didn't like, but then many groups then wanted to be part of al Qaeda because it suddenly became cool because Bush spoke about it all the time), "War on Terror" and so on. He pulled back on Iran, the rhetoric on Iran was reduced, not stopped, and I believe the deal with Iran is designed to take away the possibility of the right, if they win the White House, of having an excuse to invade Iran. 
What Obama did do, and it wasn't well thought out, was jump on the "Arab Spring" bandwagon. Libya was part of this, supporting getting rid of Mubarak in Egypt was another (even though he was a US ally), and supporting rebels in Syria and so on. I think this was a misguided policy. One of those things where the US jumps on the word "Democracy" rather than seeing the impact it would actually have on the region. 

I'm not supporting Obama by any means. I think he went in with the right intentions, but didn't think about it properly. He had the same mindset that others have, that the US is there to fix problems, and to do it in the interests of the USA.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> The point wasn't Obama trying to get out of messes. The point was not getting in hem in the first place.



Was it?  This was what I challenged



frigidweirdo said:


> This means Obama looked for a way out



You do that constantly, when I address a point you made, you say you didn't say that


----------



## NYcarbineer

*Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.


----------



## frigidweirdo

kaz said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point wasn't Obama trying to get out of messes. The point was not getting in hem in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it?  This was what I challenged
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This means Obama looked for a way out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do that constantly, when I address a point you made, you say you didn't say that
Click to expand...


You challenged huh? What is this? I thought we were discussing a topic with different views. You on the other seem to think it's a challenge. 

I made a point. You told me what the point was, but you got it wrong. So I came back at you and I've told you that what you've said IS WRONG. But you keep hammering away at it, as if somehow you think you're going to win a fucking prize out of it if you trip me up or something.

I know what I've said, and I've fucking just explained it. So you go use them there eyes on the front of your head and go READ WHAT IF FUCKING WROTE. Okay?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.




Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..

How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….

And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..

No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
Click to expand...


Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?

I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?


----------



## regent

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
Click to expand...

Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?


----------



## NYcarbineer

regent said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
Click to expand...


The conservatives do not want felons denied guns.  Period.  

They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.

None of them can tell us why though.  Why are the loopholes so important?


----------



## regent

So after 606 responses on how to keep guns from criminals, how many were NRA type arguments, arguing why it can't be done and how many plans were put forth that addressed the problem?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
Click to expand...



Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.

and when you sell your used car…should you be required to get a background check to make sure you aren't selling your car to a drunk driver?

Or your computer…..if you sell any of your electronic devices….should you be mandated to get a background check to make sure you are not selling it to a child porn felon or a computer hacker or criminal?

My idea by the way is still he best, most efficient way to do what you want…even though a straw buyer will still get around it….put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons….those who can't own or carry guns…..at any private sale…simply look at the shoulder and you will know immediately if they can own the gun…that is what you want right…?

Or do you simply want to make it harder to sell used guns……?


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> So after 606 responses on how to keep guns from criminals, how many were NRA type arguments, arguing why it can't be done and how many plans were put forth that addressed the problem?




Not one I posted is an NRA argument…..I post why licensing, gun registration and universal background checks won't work because they won't……

How many of the responses did you actually think about before you went to your automatic anti NRA brain freeze instead of analyzing why we tell you they won't actually work?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservatives do not want felons denied guns.  Period.
> 
> They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.
> 
> None of them can tell us why though.  Why are the loopholes so important?
Click to expand...



That isn't true….we want felons who possess guns in jail…moron.   We don't want to target normal gun owners who are not the gun selling problem….you guys don't care about the actual violent criminals…..you just want to punish normal gun owners who you hate…….


We have told you over and over again….I know I have….so you put up universal background checks….which will now include private sellers…..so what happens…

I want to sell my gun to my brother…..we now have to get a mandatory background check even though I know he isn't a felon……right?

A widow sells her husbands gun when he dies…she doesn't pay attention to gun laws and sells it to her neighbor or gives it to her son…she is now a felon and whoever bought it or received it is a a felon…you have now made felons out of two normal people and haven't stopped one gun crime…but that is what you want..right?

A woman has a carry permit…..she is going out for the night and takes her husbands gun because she doesn't have her own…..she is now a felon..right..even though she has a carry permit, but because she didn't' go through a background check she can be arrested…right?

and to do universal background checks for private sales….you need to register all guns…otherwise you won't know who had them before the law goes into affect….so one guy has a gun and he just says..oh yeah…I had this before the law went into effect even though he bought it afterward…without registering all guns you won't be able to prosecute him….right?

Your buddy wants to borrow your pistol and try it at the range before he buys one…so now you have to take him down and get a mandatory background check to loan him the gun…even though he already owns guns legally…

ARe those enough reasons to show that your ideas don't work….

And criminals and mass shooters will still not be stopped because they avoid licensing, registering guns and universal background checks because they steal their guns, or buy them from straw purchaser…..who pass and follow all of your laws……...


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservatives do not want felons denied guns.  Period.
> 
> They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.
> 
> None of them can tell us why though.  Why are the loopholes so important?
Click to expand...



They cut down on the crimes by catching the ones who break them……you guys want to stop crime like Tom Cruise in Minority Report…..

You essentially want all cars to have blow tubes in them so that all drivers have to prove that they aren't drunk when they drive…instead of catching the drunk drivers and just punishing them…..

And licensing gun owners, won't stop criminals or mass shooters.

Registering all guns only applies to normal gun owners since you can't make a criminal register an illegal gun….the Supreme Court said so…

And current  background checks have not stopped one mass shooter or criminal because they steal their guns, pass all the laws then become criminals or mass shooters or they get a straw buyer to get their gun…..

The only people affected by the laws are the ones who obey them…..the others are caught after they break the law and then they are punished…….you want to treat all normal gun owners as if they are criminals……unlike any other crime.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
Click to expand...


So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?

lol.  You are retarded.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservatives do not want felons denied guns.  Period.
> 
> They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.
> 
> None of them can tell us why though.  Why are the loopholes so important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They cut down on the crimes by catching the ones who break them……you guys want to stop crime like Tom Cruise in Minority Report…..
> 
> You essentially want all cars to have blow tubes in them so that all drivers have to prove that they aren't drunk when they drive…instead of catching the drunk drivers and just punishing them…..
> 
> And licensing gun owners, won't stop criminals or mass shooters.
> 
> Registering all guns only applies to normal gun owners since you can't make a criminal register an illegal gun….the Supreme Court said so…
> 
> And current  background checks have not stopped one mass shooter or criminal because they steal their guns, pass all the laws then become criminals or mass shooters or they get a straw buyer to get their gun…..
> 
> The only people affected by the laws are the ones who obey them…..the others are caught after they break the law and then they are punished…….you want to treat all normal gun owners as if they are criminals……unlike any other crime.
Click to expand...


I want all sellers of guns to have to conform to the same law regarding background checks.

Why don't you?

Why are you obsessed with exempting individuals from the liability of selling a gun to a felon?


----------



## regent

"Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
Still, it might be worth a shot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.


There's no sound reason to adopt a law that will not achieve its stated purpose, especially when the mechanism of the law limits the rights of the law abiding.


----------



## Lakhota

*"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?"*

Arm every citizen when they reach school age!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?"*
> Arm every citizen when they reach school age!


More mindless nonsense from the village useful idiot.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
Click to expand...



where did I say that asswipe?


----------



## Mac1958

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
Click to expand...

2aguy, you're dealing with the USMB King of the Straw Man Argument.

When he runs out of talking points, he starts making crazy shit up and attributes it to you.

You get used to it.
.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservatives do not want felons denied guns.  Period.
> 
> They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.
> 
> None of them can tell us why though.  Why are the loopholes so important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They cut down on the crimes by catching the ones who break them……you guys want to stop crime like Tom Cruise in Minority Report…..
> 
> You essentially want all cars to have blow tubes in them so that all drivers have to prove that they aren't drunk when they drive…instead of catching the drunk drivers and just punishing them…..
> 
> And licensing gun owners, won't stop criminals or mass shooters.
> 
> Registering all guns only applies to normal gun owners since you can't make a criminal register an illegal gun….the Supreme Court said so…
> 
> And current  background checks have not stopped one mass shooter or criminal because they steal their guns, pass all the laws then become criminals or mass shooters or they get a straw buyer to get their gun…..
> 
> The only people affected by the laws are the ones who obey them…..the others are caught after they break the law and then they are punished…….you want to treat all normal gun owners as if they are criminals……unlike any other crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want all sellers of guns to have to conform to the same law regarding background checks.
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Why are you obsessed with exempting individuals from the liability of selling a gun to a felon?
Click to expand...



because the guy selling a spare pistol to buy a new one isn't the problem and again...if a criminal,wants,that gun and there are universal background checks, the criminal just sends a guy with a clean record to buy it for him....just like they do now....and your universal background check did nothing to stop that and all it really did was make it more exoensive and legally dangerous for the normal gun owner to sell or give his gun to a relative or sell or give it to a friend....


so wow.....you just made the normal gun owner who has not and will not commit a crime the primary focus of your gun control measure while the criminal and mass shotter get the gun...

Good for you...nice fucking job.......another useless gun control law that didn't stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun....


but now you can ruin the life of the guy who bought his wife a gun, or who sold hos gun to his brother....


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.




You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.


we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
Click to expand...


It was a yes or no question.

You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,

so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
Click to expand...



Yes.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> 
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservatives do not want felons denied guns.  Period.
> 
> They insist at this point that loopholes that allow individuals to legally sell guns to felons be kept open.
> 
> None of them can tell us why though.  Why are the loopholes so important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They cut down on the crimes by catching the ones who break them……you guys want to stop crime like Tom Cruise in Minority Report…..
> 
> You essentially want all cars to have blow tubes in them so that all drivers have to prove that they aren't drunk when they drive…instead of catching the drunk drivers and just punishing them…..
> 
> And licensing gun owners, won't stop criminals or mass shooters.
> 
> Registering all guns only applies to normal gun owners since you can't make a criminal register an illegal gun….the Supreme Court said so…
> 
> And current  background checks have not stopped one mass shooter or criminal because they steal their guns, pass all the laws then become criminals or mass shooters or they get a straw buyer to get their gun…..
> 
> The only people affected by the laws are the ones who obey them…..the others are caught after they break the law and then they are punished…….you want to treat all normal gun owners as if they are criminals……unlike any other crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want all sellers of guns to have to conform to the same law regarding background checks.
> 
> Why don't you?
> 
> Why are you obsessed with exempting individuals from the liability of selling a gun to a felon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> because the guy selling a spare pistol to buy a new one isn't the problem and again...if a criminal,wants,that gun and there are universal background checks, the criminal just sends a guy with a clean record to buy it for him....just like they do now....and your universal background check did nothing to stop that and all it really did was make it more exoensive and legally dangerous for the normal gun owner to sell or give his gun to a relative or sell or give it to a friend....
> 
> 
> so wow.....you just made the normal gun owner who has not and will not commit a crime the primary focus of your gun control measure while the criminal and mass shotter get the gun...
> 
> Good for you...nice fucking job.......another useless gun control law that didn't stop one criminal or mass shooter from getting a gun....
> 
> 
> but now you can ruin the life of the guy who bought his wife a gun, or who sold hos gun to his brother....
Click to expand...


If you're under 21 you can send an older guy to buy booze for you.  Does that mean we should repeal the 21 year drinking age laws?


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Ok, so we've determined you don't actually support background checks at all.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
Click to expand...



and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
Click to expand...


Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.

We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
Click to expand...


If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?

No.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so we've determined you don't actually support background checks at all.
Click to expand...



Actually, I support current background checks even though they don't work...they seem to make you anti gunners happy and so I'll give you that...because it only hassles licensed gun dealers......unicersal background checks...which can be avoided 
In the exact same way as current background checks...unecessary since John Q. Citizen isn't sellinglarge nimbers of guns.  If the police find someone selling large numbers of guns to criminals.....by arresting criminals who use guns to commit crimes and finding their source...they can execute a sting...and they don't need universal background checks to do that...do they.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope…completely different dynamic…..and not on point.   When you are going for a job that is not the same thing as buying a legal product.   Again, we are not cops and it is not our job to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check.  Also, they can get by us and our background check the same way as they get past the  mandatory background check at a gun store..they will simply get a friend or relative to buy the gun from you for them.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
Click to expand...



if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?

if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?


a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.
> 
> We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?
Click to expand...



No, the analogy is requiring all men to get a background check before they go out with any woman at any time...to make sure they are not a convicted rapist and if a woman dates a man without paying for a background check then she can be arrested for not doing it.  since the goal os to stop rape...right and since most rape is date rape or aquaintance rape her not getting the background check is enabling a rapist...right?


You guys want to punish people before a crime is committed.....


do you want a law passed that requires all computer sales to be subject to a criminal background check?

do you want all car sales,to be subject to a background check for DUI convictions?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.
> 
> We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?
Click to expand...



Gun licensing, gun registration and universal checks don't even deter crime......so now what?


----------



## regent

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.
> 
> We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun licensing, gun registration and universal checks don't even deter crime......so now what?
Click to expand...

Might try the "gun control leads to communism" thing, It has worked to stop  many suggested changes in our nation. In fact, I think it is a better deterrent to changing laws than most arguments on these boards. Would the NRA support amending the Second Amendment, that also might help.


----------



## Ernie S.

NYcarbineer said:


> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.


It's already against the law, punishable for up to 10 years, to sell, give or transfer a gun to a felon(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1)
is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2)
is a fugitive from justice;
(3)
is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4)
has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A)
is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B)
except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6)
who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7)
who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A)
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and.......

*18 U.S. Code § 922* (d)


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> *"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?"*
> 
> Arm every citizen when they reach school age!


I agree! All citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Hey Chief, I'm a bit short this week and I need another weapon. How about you pony up?


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it should be legal for you to sell kids alcohol out of the back of your truck?
> 
> lol.  You are retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?
> 
> if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?
> 
> 
> a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.
Click to expand...


The felon who cannot buy a gun at the gun dealer because he flunks the background check should not be able to go somewhere else and buy the same gun,

because the background check there need not be done.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?
> 
> if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?
> 
> 
> a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The felon who cannot buy a gun at the gun dealer because he flunks the background check should not be able to go somewhere else and buy the same gun,
> 
> because the background check there need not be done.
Click to expand...



Sorry...they get their guns from gun dealers...how?  They simply get someone with a clean background check to walk in and buy the gun for them......that is the way they get their guns...they are not getting them from private sellers.  So, if they get them from gun stores through people who can pass a background check, they can do the exact same thing to a private seller.


----------



## 2aguy

regent said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.
> 
> We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun licensing, gun registration and universal checks don't even deter crime......so now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might try the "gun control leads to communism" thing, It has worked to stop  many suggested changes in our nation. In fact, I think it is a better deterrent to changing laws than most arguments on these boards. Would the NRA support amending the Second Amendment, that also might help.
Click to expand...



Actually, the argument is that gun control will allow the government to murder it's citizens...which is what has happened in all the countries with genocide.....Europe in Particular murdered 12 million people...who were all disarmed...


----------



## Ernie S.

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say that asswipe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?
> 
> if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?
> 
> 
> a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The felon who cannot buy a gun at the gun dealer because he flunks the background check should not be able to go somewhere else and buy the same gun,
> 
> because the background check there need not be done.
Click to expand...

He can't buy a gun legally and no one can legally sell him a gun now, you fool. How many ways does that need to be said?


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a yes or no question.
> 
> You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,
> 
> so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?
> 
> if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?
> 
> 
> a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The felon who cannot buy a gun at the gun dealer because he flunks the background check should not be able to go somewhere else and buy the same gun,
> 
> because the background check there need not be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...they get their guns from gun dealers...how?  They simply get someone with a clean background check to walk in and buy the gun for them......that is the way they get their guns...they are not getting them from private sellers.  So, if they get them from gun stores through people who can pass a background check, they can do the exact same thing to a private seller.
Click to expand...


Learn to read.

You've already stated that you think minors should be able to legally buy booze from YOU.

I think we're done here.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and if you sell to a minor you can be arrested.   all you are looking for is age, not an entire criminal background history, That requires more money and police manpower and makes you into an amatier cop....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?
> 
> if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?
> 
> 
> a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The felon who cannot buy a gun at the gun dealer because he flunks the background check should not be able to go somewhere else and buy the same gun,
> 
> because the background check there need not be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...they get their guns from gun dealers...how?  They simply get someone with a clean background check to walk in and buy the gun for them......that is the way they get their guns...they are not getting them from private sellers.  So, if they get them from gun stores through people who can pass a background check, they can do the exact same thing to a private seller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> You've already stated that you think minors should be able to legally buy booze from YOU.
> 
> I think we're done here.
Click to expand...



Nope, never said that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.
> 
> We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun licensing, gun registration and universal checks don't even deter crime......so now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might try the "gun control leads to communism" thing, It has worked to stop  many suggested changes in our nation. In fact, I think it is a better deterrent to changing laws than most arguments on these boards. Would the NRA support amending the Second Amendment, that also might help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is that gun control will allow the government to murder it's citizens...which is what has happened in all the countries with genocide.....Europe in Particular murdered 12 million people...who were all disarmed...
Click to expand...


You're off in faked moon landing world.


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



For starters, we need to look at how other advanced democracies regulate guns and how effective those regulations seem to be. We might also study the people and circumstances in which guns are misused to see if there are profiles or predictive patterns. 

The large number of guns in circulation in the USA indeed makes the challenge harder. It has been suggested to more strictly control ammunition as one possible approach.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you sell a gun to felon in a private transaction, can you be arrested if you were not required to determine if he was a felon?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you sell a computer to a felin convicted of child porn can you be arrested?
> 
> if you sell a car to a convicted drunk driver can you be arrested?
> 
> 
> a private seller who sells a gun to a felon is not the felon....you can already arrest the felon since he knows he can't buy the gun...and when the felon commits a crime with the gun you can arrest him for that too..and you can arrest that felon without universal background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The felon who cannot buy a gun at the gun dealer because he flunks the background check should not be able to go somewhere else and buy the same gun,
> 
> because the background check there need not be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...they get their guns from gun dealers...how?  They simply get someone with a clean background check to walk in and buy the gun for them......that is the way they get their guns...they are not getting them from private sellers.  So, if they get them from gun stores through people who can pass a background check, they can do the exact same thing to a private seller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.
> 
> You've already stated that you think minors should be able to legally buy booze from YOU.
> 
> I think we're done here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, never said that.
Click to expand...


Excuse me...

"You can sell guns out of the back of your truck without a background check of the buyer,

so shouldn't you be able to sell booze in the same manner without an ID check?"

YOUR ANSWER:

Yes.


----------



## Lakhota

Lakhota said:


> *"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?"*
> 
> Arm every citizen when they reach school age!



Yeah, baby, that'll sure make playing cowboys and Indians more fun.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, we need to look at how other advanced democracies regulate guns and how effective those regulations seem to be. We might also study the people and circumstances in which guns are misused to see if there are profiles or predictive patterns.
> 
> The large number of guns in circulation in the USA indeed makes the challenge harder. It has been suggested to more strictly control ammunition as one possible approach.
Click to expand...


Is there an answer in there somewhere?  Also, if you want to look at other cultures, that's fine, but typically liberals ignore the differences between us and without factoring that you learn nothing from the exercise.


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
Click to expand...


Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.

Your argument is a false analogy.  Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us.  That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies.  You are harming victims.

  I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious.  How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> So after 606 responses on how to keep guns from criminals, how many were NRA type arguments, arguing why it can't be done and how many plans were put forth that addressed the problem?



Our point is you can't disarm criminals, Holmes, so stop disarming victims.  I mean duh


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?"*
> 
> Arm every citizen when they reach school age!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, baby, that'll sure make playing cowboys and Indians more fun.
Click to expand...


Typical liberal.  Choice isn't an option to you.  Either we force citizens to not be armed or we force them to be armed.  No one is proposing forcing anyone to be armed, Adolph.  that's a you thing


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.



Is there anything left in your ass after all the crap you pulled out?  You never seem to run out


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no sound reason to adopt a law that will not achieve its stated purpose, especially when the mechanism of the law limits the rights of the law abiding.
Click to expand...


Exactly, no matter how many times we tell him that, he's just too flat out stupid to grasp what he's being told and he repeats his fallacy ignoring it.  there is no discussion here, he'd have to process our points to have that and he just doesn't


----------



## kaz

regent said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Won't work because they won't...." sure sounds like an NRA argument. I am reminded of the many arguments that begin in this fashion, it won't work. But at least no one that I have discovered as yet, has used the favorite conservative argument, "Because gun control leads to communism."
> Still, it might be worth a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of the dumber gun grabbers......please enlighten us.....name a gun control measure you like and explain how it stops any....not all, jist any criminals and mass shooters from getting a gun if they want one.
> 
> 
> we don't just say your gun control laws won't work...we explain exactly why they won't work.....so please be more accurate in your posts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws are not designed to eliminate crime.  They are designed to deter it and to punish for it after the fact.
> 
> We don't have laws against rape for the purpose of ending all rape, do we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gun licensing, gun registration and universal checks don't even deter crime......so now what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might try the "gun control leads to communism" thing, It has worked to stop  many suggested changes in our nation. In fact, I think it is a better deterrent to changing laws than most arguments on these boards. Would the NRA support amending the Second Amendment, that also might help.
Click to expand...


Why would we want to argue that?


----------



## NYcarbineer

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us.  That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies.  You are harming victims.
> 
> I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious.  How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?
Click to expand...


Criminals don't follow any laws against what they do as criminals.  You're making an argument against all laws, which makes your argument absurd.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us.  That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies.  You are harming victims.
> 
> I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious.  How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals don't follow any laws against what they do as criminals.  You're making an argument against all laws, which makes your argument absurd.
Click to expand...



no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  That is exactly what laws are designed to do.....you guys...you believe you prevent the criminal from committing the crime in the first place...which is what each one of your gun control policies is aimed at.  and since laws don't prevent law breaking, they only punish those who decide to break the law....your policies will never work.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Could try Greg Bear's idea in his novel "Eon" and make it legal, and encourage criminals to hunt and kill each other. Offer complete legality and some financial incentive. Solve the problem for us.


----------



## Wildman

*Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*

*whine, cry, stomp feet, hold breath, threaten to run away from home, pee their panties, wet the bed every night, throw another 4 year old childish tantrum, refuse to take out the trash as mother asked them to do, call 911 and claim abuse, shoot spit wads at the teacher.., the list is nearly endless if their MESSiah does not issue a dump truck full of EO's restricting the legal sale of guns, banning guns from private sales, once more, the list is endless.

demoscum/libertards have no solution other than what i have listed above. *


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us.  That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies.  You are harming victims.
> 
> I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious.  How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals don't follow any laws against what they do as criminals.  You're making an argument against all laws, which makes your argument absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  That is exactly what laws are designed to do.....you guys...you believe you prevent the criminal from committing the crime in the first place...which is what each one of your gun control policies is aimed at.  and since laws don't prevent law breaking, they only punish those who decide to break the law....your policies will never work.
Click to expand...


I have the dumb ass on ignore, so I only saw this when you responded.

He didn't grasp my post, I didn't say what he said I said at all.  In fact, what he said I said directly contradicted what I actually said.  He's a dumb ass.  His only interest is arguing that anyone not a left wing leftist like him is a "Republican."  He's a useless idiot, I enjoy only having to see his crap when someone quotes the loser


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .



So you think the felon just out of jail for armed robbery should be able to buy his next gun for his next robbery, 

no questions asked, and let the law deal with him after the fact of his next bank robbery.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .



So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,

you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the felon just out of jail for armed robbery should be able to buy his next gun for his next robbery,
> 
> no questions asked, and let the law deal with him after the fact of his next bank robbery.
Click to expand...



Nope.....I gave you my actual solution put a tattoo on his shoulder...so anyone selling a gun can easily see he can't buy one.  That actually works.  And it doesn't require a universal background check.  I have also said I don't mind current background checks.  I oppose universal background checks because 1) they need universal gun registration to work 2) they will be bypassed the same way that current mandated, federal background checks can be bypassed, your felon just out of jail will steal a gun or get a friend or family member with a clean background to by the gun for him, or he will just by an already illegally acquired gun from another criminal.

I support current background checks because you guys want them...and I will give in to that much....but universal background checks go too far.....and are just as useless as current background checks.

And yes...the best way to stop him is to lock him up for a long time when you catch him the first time using a gun to commit a crime.

Again......put a tattoo on the shoulder of a convicted felon and then you will immediately know he can't have a gun.....he will never be able to buy a gun by himself ever again...not in a gun store, not at a gun show and not in a private sale.

And if someone sells a gun to a felon, as a single item....that should be a fine, not a crime...just like selling pot.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,
> 
> you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.
Click to expand...



Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.

But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.

Gun background checks are different.  Guns are a legal product.  It is against the law for felons to own or carry them and they can already be arrested for that.

Selling a gun is no different than selling a car or a computer...all are legal products.

Do you want all computer sales to require a criminal background check before you can buy them to include, ipads, notebooks, and any device that can be hooked up to the internet........to be sure that you are not selling a computer to a child porn criminal, a convicted hacker or a computer identity theft criminal, a convicted criminal who stole state secrets via computer hacking....

If you support background checks on guns you have to support background checks for computers since great harm is done with them.....you can hack state secrets and endanger lives...right?  or children can be exploited and murdered using computers...right?

And cars...Almost every crime needs a car to be successful....all mass shooters take cars to their shooting sites, all drug dealers transport their drugs in cars, and all rapists and murderers use cars..right?

Not to forget drunk drivers....right?

So you have to support criminal background checks on all car purchases to ensure that drunk drivers are not buying the car...right?

If you don't support background check on these items you are a hypocrite....


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the felon just out of jail for armed robbery should be able to buy his next gun for his next robbery,
> 
> no questions asked, and let the law deal with him after the fact of his next bank robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.....I gave you my actual solution put a tattoo on his shoulder...so anyone selling a gun can easily see he can't buy one.  That actually works.  And it doesn't require a universal background check.  I have also said I don't mind current background checks.  I oppose universal background checks because 1) they need universal gun registration to work 2) they will be bypassed the same way that current mandated, federal background checks can be bypassed, your felon just out of jail will steal a gun or get a friend or family member with a clean background to by the gun for him, or he will just by an already illegally acquired gun from another criminal.
> 
> I support current background checks because you guys want them...and I will give in to that much....but universal background checks go too far.....and are just as useless as current background checks.
> 
> And yes...the best way to stop him is to lock him up for a long time when you catch him the first time using a gun to commit a crime.
> 
> Again......put a tattoo on the shoulder of a convicted felon and then you will immediately know he can't have a gun.....he will never be able to buy a gun by himself ever again...not in a gun store, not at a gun show and not in a private sale.
> 
> And if someone sells a gun to a felon, as a single item....that should be a fine, not a crime...just like selling pot.
Click to expand...


Please.  You people come up with the damnedest shit to defend an indefensible position.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,
> 
> you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...

jesus you are off the deep end.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,
> 
> you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
Click to expand...



We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.

My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....

(Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)

I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,
> 
> you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
Click to expand...


So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> ...



So the problem of the straw purchaser is solved by just letting anyone who comes along buy a gun, no questions asked....

christ.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> no, not even close....we make the srgument that criminal activity should be stopped when the criminal is caught breaking the law and then punished.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,
> 
> you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
Click to expand...


I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....


Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........

If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?  

Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the problem of the straw purchaser is solved by just letting anyone who comes along buy a gun, no questions asked....
> 
> christ.
Click to expand...



Did I say that.  The only way to solve the straw purchaser...is to catch the criminal and get him to turn on his supplier.  If the supplier is a big enough gun trafficker...you do what we always do in criminal matters...you set up a sting, and arrest that supplier...that way you concentrate on the actual problem...not the guy who sells a gun to his neighbor or the widow who gives the dead husbands guns to his children.

Your universal background check targets the guy who sells his gun to his family member or a freind, since he now has to drag them in to do a background check....or the widow who  gives her dead husbands guns to her kids.......

And it does nothing to stop the criminals...since as you pointed out, the criminals will simply get a straw purchaser and not bother with the universal background check.

We just had an arms trafficker in chicago get sentenced....he brought 43 guns into chicago and tried to sell them to criminals....how did the police catch him......the old fashioned way...and informant....

And that is all you need to do now....old fashioned police work to get straw purchasers and sellers

The real problem.....this guy selling 43 guns to criminals.....he got sentenced to 3 years....3 years...and he will be out in 2....that is the problem....he should get 10 years for each gun.....do that...and you will reduce the gun murder rate......as you guys say, you won't get rid of it completely, but you will narrow it down to the really evil types.


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think the background of a convicted child molester should be checked before he's given a job around children,
> 
> you think we should just wait until he molests his next child at that job and then punish him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
Click to expand...


You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.  

There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
Click to expand...



Felons cannot vote.  So we therefore, according to your reasoning, must insist that all voters get a federal background check before they vote......right?


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
Click to expand...



And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, child molestors should get life sentences since they cannot control their urge to hurt children.  They should never be released into the population ever again....kind of solves that problem.
> 
> But with the laws we have, yes, we need to do a background check on employees....to make sure they aren't criminals.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
Click to expand...



Guy...they currently have universal background checks in Washington state..and they are already failing....

Background Checks Powerless Again: Father of Gunman Faces Charges for Falsifying Purchase Forms - Breitbart

*On September 29, Raymond Fryberg–father of Marysville-Pilchuck High School gunman Jaylen Fryberg–was found guilty of six firearm-related charges, including falsifying answers on federal forms for the purchase of a Beretta Px4 Storm handgun.*

It was the Beretta handgun that 15-year-old Jaylen used to kill four students and wound another on October 24, 2014. He then took his own life.

*According to Reuters, Raymond Fryberg was prohibited from buying or possessing a gun due to “a non-expiring domestic violence restraining order in 2002 after he was accused of assaulting and threatening his girlfriend.” Yet Fryberg purchased the Beretta and four other guns in 2013.

He passed a background check for the Beretta, something which prosecutors say he did by “[lying] on federal forms.” KOMO News reported that Fryberg was arrested on March 31 on charges that he “illegally purchased the firearm used in the mass shooting.”
*
Having been found guilty, Fryberg is scheduled to be sentenced on January 11.

*It should be noted that Washington state’s new universal background check law passed by a small margin on November 4–just under two weeks after the Marysville shooting–with pledges that more background checks would reduce gun crime. However, Fryberg’s example proves again that background checks are impotent against determined criminals or those who are determined to get their hands on a gun at all costs.
*
Sooooo…he lied on his background check form…..a Universal Background check state….and he got the gun…and then his kid got the gun and killed people…..
So….the guy could not legally buy the gun under existing laws, and should not have been able to guy the gun due to both types of background check regimes, the old one…and now the Universal one……
Did background checks stop this guy from getting a gun…no.
Did background checks stop this guys son from killing people…no.
Since this guy could not legally own the gun in the first place…would licensing all gun owners have stopped him in any way….no.
Since this guy could not legally own the gun in the first place….would registering all guns have stopped this shooting….no.
In fact, a Supreme Court decision made it un Constitutional to force criminals from registering their illegal guns due to the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination……
So a failure of anti gun extremism on all fronts...


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we don't need background checks for gun buying to make sure the buyer isn't a criminal...
> 
> jesus you are off the deep end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
Click to expand...


Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.
Click to expand...



Are you feeling well.......have you ever voted......registering to vote is not a background check....you need to have a law that requires that you get a background check before you walk into the polling place...before you vote...to make sure you aren't a convicted felon......that is how you reason..right?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us.  That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies.  You are harming victims.
> 
> I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious.  How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?
Click to expand...


Your argument might have merit but for the obvious fact a criminal is not easily identified, and a criminal act can and many times occurs in the heat of the moment by those who have no such record.

Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea which you and the other three who seem to have a gun fetish***can't rebut, and always fall back to the same opinion; the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and more guns equal less violence.  Both are untrue.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Your argument might have merit but for the obvious fact a criminal is not easily identified, and a criminal act can and many times occurs in the heat of the moment by those who have no such record.



Not sure what your point is



Wry Catcher said:


> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed



For the most part.  You do not have the right to be armed on someone else's private property against their consent.  You also do not have the right to be armed inside government property.  For example, court, military bases and other actual government property.  Note that is not public property, where you do have a right to be armed.  But going into an area that is actually for the purpose of running government you don't.



Wry Catcher said:


> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea which you and the other three who seem to have a gun fetish***



You're the one equating guns with sex, the fetish is yours



Wry Catcher said:


> can't rebut, and always fall back to the same opinion; the Second Amendment is sacrosanct



No one said guns are "sacrosanct" but you and I have no idea what you are talking about.  They are like any other Constitutional right, they can be removed with due process of law.  Everyone arguing my side has said the same thing.  You have a fetish about the sacrosanct thing



Wry Catcher said:


> and more guns equal less violence.  Both are untrue.



No one said that, we said the right to defend yourself


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?*
> 
> Start by closing the loophole that allows an individual to legally sell a gun to a felon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since none of the mass shooters were stopped by that law currently…how would changing it stop them later…..
> 
> How about when you catch a felon with a gun, you just arrest them and put them in jail…the felon knows he can't have the gun……it is on him, not the seller…the seller is not a cop….
> 
> And to do that….for all violent criminals…put a tattoo on their shoulder that identifies them as unable to own or carry guns…that way a private seller just has to ask to see the shoulder…..if they see the mark, they don't sell the gun…..
> 
> No need for paperwork, licensing normal gun owners, registering guns or new background checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that jobseekers in places where children are involved should not be screened for a criminal record involving child abuse, pedophilia, etc.?
> 
> I mean, children still get molested.  What's the sense of having laws trying to prevent it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws may not end child abuse. just as laws have not stopped drunk drivers, nor those running red lights, nor any number of infractions but they may cut down on the numbers of laws broken. Is that the conservative goal now, have no laws either by not passing them or removing them cause laws don't work 100%? All that just to have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the obvious difference that a high school debater would recognize.
> 
> Your argument is a false analogy.  Our argument is not that we should not have gun laws because criminals don't follow them, it's that they don't follow them and their victims do because we aren't criminals which harms us.  That isn't applicable to any of your other analogies.  You are harming victims.
> 
> I mean Jesus fucking Christ, that is so blatantly obvious.  How can a supposed adult not recognize that ridiculous fallacy when you say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument might have merit but for the obvious fact a criminal is not easily identified, and a criminal act can and many times occurs in the heat of the moment by those who have no such record.
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea which you and the other three who seem to have a gun fetish***can't rebut, and always fall back to the same opinion; the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and more guns equal less violence.  Both are untrue.
Click to expand...



No...violent criminals should have a tattoo on their arm, on the shoulder.  That way they can easily be identified as not being allowed to own a gun.  No unviversal background check will ever be needed then.  A private seller can just ask to see the shoulder of the gun buyer...if it has the tattoo, then he won't sell the gun.  Simple, immediate and addresses every problem you guys want to solve through gun laws...right?

And yes...if you are not a criminal you have a right to own and carry a gun for self defense.

And guns do lower the crime rate...study after study shows this.

I would possibly support private businesses being able to ban guns...but that increases gun stealing when cars are broken into...and it is also a violation of our civil rights.

Courts...you can check your gun at the door....but criminals still get guns into court rooms.  I am not rigid on these matters after all.....


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.
Click to expand...



You understand that you can register to vote when you get your drivers license..that is not a background check in any way shape or form......

According to you we need a federally mandated criminal background check to keep felons from voting....since that is how you reason..right?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.


Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
Why is this difficult for you to understand?


> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....


...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
Click to expand...


I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
Click to expand...



The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.

An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are
Click to expand...


From the guy who keeps insisting we think gun rights are absolute when every one of us keeps telling you gun rights can be limited with the same rules as any other right, through due process.  No matter how many times every one of us tells you you're wrong about what we think, you keep repeating that's what we think.  Now that's fatuous



Wry Catcher said:


> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested



Yes, and your ideas have been tested and failed.  Ours have been tested and worked.  So let's go with our ideas



Wry Catcher said:


> a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.



So ... why do you bother posting your views on message boards if you think only the SCOTUS matters?  I think it's sad you allow them to think for you.  Then again, it's either that or Obama thinking for you.  Or Harry Reid.  Or Nancy Pelosi.

The only one who tells me what to think is me.  But I'm not an intellectual zombie and have no interest in being one


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.
> 
> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.
Click to expand...


Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.
> 
> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"
Click to expand...

yes, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.
> 
> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"
Click to expand...


In so many words, no.  Yet one can make that inference from comments posted by M14 Shooter, 2aguy and several others who use the Second Amendment's language as a rebuttal to gun control.


----------



## danielpalos

better aqueducts and better roads, that is my solution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> In so many words, no.  Yet one can make that inference from comments posted by M14 Shooter, 2aguy and several others who use the Second Amendment's language as a rebuttal to gun control.


This, is of course, another lie.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question:   What qualifies as an "infringement" of the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Note the lack of response from the people who are so happy to note that the rights protected by the 2nd are not absolute -- you, specifically.

But then, anti-gun loons such as yourself avoid topics like these because you understand it is impossible for you to stand and deliver a sound argument in support of your position.

You may now proceed to prove me correct - again.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
Click to expand...


I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.

My points are consistent,  Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:  

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).

BUT the Framers did not.

*


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.
> 
> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


I flew over Canada just a few hours ago on my way back to Europe, it's a big country


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.
> 
> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In so many words, no.  Yet one can make that inference from comments posted by M14 Shooter, 2aguy and several others who use the Second Amendment's language as a rebuttal to gun control.
Click to expand...


Um..no... you can't.  We are talking about citizens who have committed no crime, you are arguing that means we want criminals to have no limit on their right to buy guns.  We keep saying you are wrong, you keep repeating it anyway.

We are having two different discussions.  Yours is a delusional one with the voices in your head


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> My points are consistent,  Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).
> 
> BUT the Framers did not.
> *
Click to expand...


God, once again you lack basic reading skills.  The militia is not an equivocation in that sentence, it is an explanation.

This is what it actually says.  Because we need the militia, gun rights shall not be infringed.  That is an explanation, it does not limit the right.

Here is how you are reading it with your elementary level reading.

Gun rights shall not be infringed if and only if the owner is in a militia as defined, regulated and approved by government and all fees charged by government are paid.


It doesn't say that, not at all...


----------



## kaz

kaz said:
			
		

> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed*
Click to expand...


Actually, I've made the point multiple times that you have that right on your own property, on public property and on other people's private property only with permission.

You do not have that right on other people's property when they refuse permission and you do not have that right on actual government property without permission.

The distinction I'm drawing between public and government property is that public property is common property, the roads, etc.  Government property would be property specifically for the purpose of conducting government business.  For example, military bases, the courts, that sort of thing.


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> My points are consistent,  Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).
> 
> BUT the Framers did not.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, once again you lack basic reading skills.  The militia is not an equivocation in that sentence, it is an explanation.
> 
> This is what it actually says.  Because we need the militia, gun rights shall not be infringed.  That is an explanation, it does not limit the right.
> 
> Here is how you are reading it with your elementary level reading.
> 
> Gun rights shall not be infringed if and only if the owner is in a militia as defined, regulated and approved by government and all fees charged by government are paid.
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that, not at all...
Click to expand...

dear, the Intent and Purpose provides the context, should we need to quibble Terms, in legal venues.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only absolute I can think of at the moment is how fatuous you are.
> 
> An idea cannot be determined to be effective/ineffective unless it is tested, and a method of gun control can only be found unconstitutional by a Majority of SCOTUS; not by you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever come up with anyone besides you to say gun rights are "absolute?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flew over Canada just a few hours ago on my way back to Europe, it's a big country
Click to expand...


In doing so did you cogitate on typewriters, and wonder if they might float?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I've made the point multiple times that you have that right on your own property, on public property and on other people's private property only with permission.
> 
> You do not have that right on other people's property when they refuse permission and you do not have that right on actual government property without permission.
> 
> The distinction I'm drawing between public and government property is that public property is common property, the roads, etc.  Government property would be property specifically for the purpose of conducting government business.  For example, military bases, the courts, that sort of thing.
Click to expand...


Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.

Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
Click to expand...


If you were not blinded by bias you might be able to discern my opinion on gun control is not black and white.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> My points are consistent,  Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> 
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> They than fall back to equivocate the Second Amendment and declare, yes but that's not what the original intent was, the framers meant to say mentally disturbed people ought to have their RIGHT to bear arms infringed, and so should felons and so should former slaves (post emancipation, but still relevant).
> 
> BUT the Framers did not.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, once again you lack basic reading skills.  The militia is not an equivocation in that sentence, it is an explanation.
> 
> This is what it actually says.  Because we need the militia, gun rights shall not be infringed.  That is an explanation, it does not limit the right.
> 
> Here is how you are reading it with your elementary level reading.
> 
> Gun rights shall not be infringed if and only if the owner is in a militia as defined, regulated and approved by government and all fees charged by government are paid.
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that, not at all...
Click to expand...


That's your spin, and an echo of others; the argument goes on no matter what I think or you believe.

[I don't believe needing a license to own, possess or have a gun in one's possession is an infringement, it is less than requiring a teacher or a doctor a higher education, or a person to get a license to drive]

You cannot rephrase, rewrite or proffer any evidence that the wording of the Second Amendment means exactly how you want to interpret it.

Others smarter than your and better educated hold a different opinion, even the USSC rulings in Heller and McDonald were 5-4 - so don't pretend to be an expert, not only is that laughable, but makes you appear to be as ridiculous as are M14, 2aguy and the NRA.


----------



## easyt65

"Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?"

Arming Mexican Drug Cartels, Libyan and Syrian terror.... er, REBELS, amending the Constitution, and 'confiscating' law-abiding citizens' weapons....

Got it!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
Click to expand...

Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
*



			My points are consistent,....
		
Click to expand...

*In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.*



			Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:  
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

Click to expand...

*There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.


See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.


> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public


Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were not blinded by bias you might be able to discern my opinion on gun control is not black and white.
Click to expand...

Correct -- it is based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Click to expand...


Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.

AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.

SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
Click to expand...

You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
Click to expand...


M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.


----------



## Rustic

Bigger fish to fry, move on a nonissue.

By the way: buy more guns and ammo


----------



## Ernie S.

NYcarbineer said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have background checks already....and they don't work.  Universal background checks won't work either.
> 
> My idea...putting a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons who can never own a gun...will work everytime....
> 
> (Of course they will just steal the gun, get a straw purchaser or buy the gun illegally)
> 
> I am not going to let you anti gun extremists set up the need for universal registration of gun owners....and that is all universal background checks are meant to do...since again, they will not stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.
Click to expand...

I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
You don't even want to show ID to vote....
Pathetic hypocrisy...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why require ID to vote when fake ID can be obtained?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
> You don't even want to show ID to vote....
> Pathetic hypocrisy...
Click to expand...


Your a liar.  I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.  If The Congress or a State Legislatures truly believed voter fraud was a great threat to our democratic institutions they would authorize a form of voter ID and pay for its distribution.

What I oppose is the effort by the Republican Party to suppress the vote of those they cannot get to believe that they are a party of a big tent.  Which of course they are not and haven't been since IKE left office.

Evidence?  Sure:

Opposed the Equal Rights Amendment
Opposed the Lily Ledbetter Law
Opposed the rights of workers to bargain collectively
Opposed Affirmative Action
Opposed SSM
Opposed women in combat positions
Opposed gay and lesbian service in the military


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
Click to expand...

They will also likely point out that you can't spell ambiguity.

You know guy... You hang out here with your bullshit puffed out chest, "I'm in charge here" attitude, but YOU are the only person here who takes you seriously.
Did you carry a nerf gun when you were on the job too?

REALLY, asshat. If you are going to offer a definition and type it in all caps, you really ought to spell it correctly.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem showing a photo I.D. to buy a gun to make sure you are you.....
> 
> 
> Because you have to at least show you are you.....notice they aren't insisting on a criminal background check to vote...right.....thanks for your posts since this just came to me........
> 
> If you are consistent....then you would require a criminal background check before you can vote since felons are not allowed to vote..........right?
> 
> Do you support requiring that each citizen pass a background check to vote....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
> You don't even want to show ID to vote....
> Pathetic hypocrisy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your a liar.  I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.  If The Congress or a State Legislatures truly believed voter fraud was a great threat to our democratic institutions they would authorize a form of voter ID and pay for its distribution.
> 
> What I oppose is the effort by the Republican Party to suppress the vote of those they cannot get to believe that they are a party of a big tent.  Which of course they are not and haven't been since IKE left office.
> 
> Evidence?  Sure:
> 
> Opposed the Equal Rights Amendment
> Opposed the Lily Ledbetter Law
> Opposed the rights of workers to bargain collectively
> Opposed Affirmative Action
> Opposed SSM
> Opposed women in combat positions
> Opposed gay and lesbian service in the military
Click to expand...

My what is a liar?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will also likely point out that you can't spell ambiguity.
> 
> You know guy... You hang out here with your bullshit puffed out chest, "I'm in charge here" attitude, but YOU are the only person here who takes you seriously.
> Did you carry a nerf gun when you were on the job too?
> 
> REALLY, asshat. If you are going to offer a definition and type it in all caps, you really ought to spell it correctly.
Click to expand...


typical grammar nazi, ^^^ a typical asshole authoritarian punk who can't read in context.  My first spelling of the word was correct, I screwed up on the second and if that's all you got - ad hominems - why not STFU or post something substantive, if you can (which is unlikely).


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You show ID when you vote to confirm you're the person who is REGISTERED to vote.
> 
> There is no federal law against felons voting.  There is against felons buying guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am more than willing to show an ID that proves I am me when I buy the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to read.  To vote you have to register.  That is your background check.  There is no place you can go and vote without that background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm registered to vote. I vote. I've been through several background checks and another more strident check for a CCP and I STILL have to go through another back ground check for each weapon purchase.
> You don't even want to show ID to vote....
> Pathetic hypocrisy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your a liar.  I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.  If The Congress or a State Legislatures truly believed voter fraud was a great threat to our democratic institutions they would authorize a form of voter ID and pay for its distribution.
> 
> What I oppose is the effort by the Republican Party to suppress the vote of those they cannot get to believe that they are a party of a big tent.  Which of course they are not and haven't been since IKE left office.
> 
> Evidence?  Sure:
> 
> Opposed the Equal Rights Amendment
> Opposed the Lily Ledbetter Law
> Opposed the rights of workers to bargain collectively
> Opposed Affirmative Action
> Opposed SSM
> Opposed women in combat positions
> Opposed gay and lesbian service in the military
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My what is a liar?
Click to expand...


I explained your lie which even an average 3rd grade student would understand.  Have someone help you:

*"I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.*

"If The Congress or State Legislatures truly believed voter fraud was a great threat to our democratic institutions they would authorize a form of voter ID and pay for its distribution."


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Your a liar.  I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.


What's that?
You disagree with the state forcing a citizen to pay a fee in order to exercise his rights?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
Click to expand...


You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.


See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.


> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public


Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> 
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will also likely point out that you can't spell ambiguity.
> 
> You know guy... You hang out here with your bullshit puffed out chest, "I'm in charge here" attitude, but YOU are the only person here who takes you seriously.
> Did you carry a nerf gun when you were on the job too?
> 
> REALLY, asshat. If you are going to offer a definition and type it in all caps, you really ought to spell it correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> typical grammar nazi, ^^^ a typical asshole authoritarian punk who can't read in context.  My first spelling of the word was correct, I screwed up on the second and if that's all you got - ad hominems - why not STFU or post something substantive, if you can (which is unlikely).
Click to expand...

Fuck you, you pompous ass. I post substantive material all the time to people worth discussing issues with. Pompous, self absorbed know-nothings, get little but the ridicule they deserve.


----------



## Ernie S.




----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

To keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, a simple bill should be drawn up and debated... then inevitably passed and signed into law by the President, which simply forbids anyone with any discernible kinship with the Ideological Left to possess a firearm; wherein, it is deemed legal to summarily execute anyone of such a nature who is found to be in possession of such, or who is reasonably known to have recently BEEN in possession of such.  This would include... all teachers, professors, all homosexuals, the gender confused, government employees except the Military... which would of course need to exclude all sexual deviants and Democrats in general... all members of the media, all citizens of any Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Enterprise of kind ... City, State, what have you.  I.e.: The Democrat Party, MA, MI, VT... Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, NYC, California, Oregon, Washington, Washington DC... New Mexico, Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc... .

Sure... it will be a blood bath for a few years.  But... once the Leftists or products of left-think are eradicated... the rest will simply work itself out.  

It's not like its not going to come to a blood bath inevitably, anyway.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've posted my argument ad nausea....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
Click to expand...


Challenge ... ACCEPTED

OK, Holmes.  Answer either of these questions.

1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee

2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...

now run away like the scared little bitch that you are


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
Click to expand...


You mean my ignorance based on that obviously the Constitution and the Supreme Court allow government to decide if we get our Consittutional rights, make us apply, get a license and pay a fee.

OK, you useless, integrity challenged limp dicked human being.  I am calling you out.

NAME ONE

Name another right you subject the same standards to


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...


To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your a liar.  I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.
> 
> 
> 
> What's that?
> You disagree with the state forcing a citizen to pay a fee in order to exercise his rights?
Click to expand...


24th Amendment.  Gee, and I thought you believed you are an expert on COTUS.  I guess I was correct, you're as dumb as you many posts suggest.


----------



## Rustic

A nonissue...

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your a liar.  I'm on record supporting a voter ID, but not one an individual needs to pay for, such would be a poll tax.
> 
> 
> 
> What's that?
> You disagree with the state forcing a citizen to pay a fee in order to exercise his rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 24th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see...
So, as long at there's no specific language in the constitution that prohibits it, the exercise of a right CAN be subjected to fees taxes and excises by the state?
Correct?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.


See post 6128
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.


> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public


Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.

That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone has had their rigts removed thru due process, they retain all of their rights.
> Why is this difficult for you to understand?
> ...  and have as of yet done nothing to demonstrate its necessity, illustrate its efficacy. or establish its constitutionality.
> Nor shall you, because you know you cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge ... ACCEPTED
> 
> OK, Holmes.  Answer either of these questions.
> 
> 1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
> 
> 2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
> 
> now run away like the scared little bitch that you are
Click to expand...


"scared little bitch"; spoken with the authority of trailer trash.

1.  Word Salad, fix the syntax and maybe it might, possibly seem kinda like someone whose first language was English, and they completed the first grade.

2.  I doubt anyone alive today heard anything the founder's said.


----------



## Arizona Willie

The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.

Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.

MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Click to expand...


Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.  

Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.

That ^^^ really is quite funny. 

The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> 
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute
Click to expand...


Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed?  Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade.  As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.
Click to expand...

They are, and orders of magnitude more so than your arguments, wholly from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement),


^^^
A lie.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Arizona Willie said:


> The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.
> 
> Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.
> 
> MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.



The cost to the taxpayer is (depending on the State and the classification of the inmate) somewhere between 30k and 50k per year.  Mandatory for life includes end of life medical (hospice) which can be long and costly.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> 
> In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed?  Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade.  As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
Click to expand...


Wrong.  W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.

As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Click to expand...


Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."

Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.
> 
> Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.
> 
> MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.



I could get behind that concept


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.
> 
> Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.
> 
> MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost to the taxpayer is (depending on the State and the classification of the inmate) somewhere between 30k and 50k per year.  Mandatory for life includes end of life medical (hospice) which can be long and costly.
Click to expand...


That cost is dwarfed by the cost of all the crimes committed on society


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Click to expand...


Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge ... ACCEPTED
> 
> OK, Holmes.  Answer either of these questions.
> 
> 1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
> 
> 2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
> 
> now run away like the scared little bitch that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "scared little bitch"; spoken with the authority of trailer trash.
> 
> 1.  Word Salad, fix the syntax and maybe it might, possibly seem kinda like someone whose first language was English, and they completed the first grade.
> 
> 2.  I doubt anyone alive today heard anything the founder's said.
Click to expand...




Note you didn't answer the question, I called the part you're a scared little bitch right.  Here you go again.  I have asked you this at least 20 times, no answer.  It's pretty clear, see if you can solve it, Holmes.  One of them has to be true given your insistence that licensing and registration and fees are cool for guns

OK, Holmes.  Answer either of these questions.

1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee

2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed?  Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade.  As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.
> 
> As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes
Click to expand...


I suppose I should never ask you anything, reality isn't your forte.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed?  Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade.  As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.
> 
> As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose I should never ask you anything, reality isn't your forte.
Click to expand...


Being the typical arrogant, piece of shit Liberal is yours.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
Click to expand...


Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."

Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you
Click to expand...


LOL, not true, that you lie is another character flaw and or mental aberration you manifest.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
Click to expand...


Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, not true, that you lie is another character flaw and or mental aberration you manifest.
Click to expand...


It's true.  You being unwilling to admit it is a character flaw and mental illness.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: * Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.*
> 
> 
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> My points are consistent,....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenge ... ACCEPTED
> 
> OK, Holmes.  Answer either of these questions.
> 
> 1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
> 
> 2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
> 
> now run away like the scared little bitch that you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "scared little bitch"; spoken with the authority of trailer trash.
> 
> 1.  Word Salad, fix the syntax and maybe it might, possibly seem kinda like someone whose first language was English, and they completed the first grade.
> 
> 2.  I doubt anyone alive today heard anything the founder's said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note you didn't answer the question, I called the part you're a scared little bitch right.  Here you go again.  I have asked you this at least 20 times, no answer.  It's pretty clear, see if you can solve it, Holmes.  One of them has to be true given your insistence that licensing and registration and fees are cool for guns
> 
> OK, Holmes.  Answer either of these questions.
> 
> 1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
> 
> 2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
Click to expand...


I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me.  To put your loaded and stupid questions to rest:

The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered; we needed three amendments to the Constitution to force some States to do the right thing.  Some, with Right Wing control still work to suppress this right. 

Gays were denied the right to serve in our military.

Gay and Lesbian couples were denied the right to marry.

CC&R's prevented African Americans to own or rent in neighborhoods.

Mixed races were denied the right to marry.

All of which have been deemed unconstitutional.  Only right wing authoritarian fascists supported them and are still pissed off that the "left wing" believes in equal rights before the law.

Subsequent to the ratification of the COTUS the Bill of Rights was promulgated:  The first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, Amendments are all taken from the English Common Law, as was the second.

Read the following and comment, but stop with the stupid questions:

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me.


And no ability to respond with anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed?  Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade.  As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.
> 
> As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose I should never ask you anything, reality isn't your forte.
Click to expand...


I directly answered your question, that you don't like the answer is your problem, not mine.

Now answering questions really isn't your forte.  Here's one you keep running and hiding from like a little girl:

OK, Holmes. Answer either of these questions.

1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee

2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...

You are saying for guns, a Constitutional right, that government can require license, registration and charging fees.  So one of those must be your view.  Either you think government can do the same for other rights, or you think this right is not like other rights.  Which one is it?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
Click to expand...


You are seriously mentally diseased that you think of guns in terms of a sexual fetish.  If you want to whack off to a Saturday Night Special go ahead, but I for one don't really care to hear about it


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, not true, that you lie is another character flaw and or mental aberration you manifest.
Click to expand...


Yet you can't name one and every gun right advocate in the thread has told you the same thing.  Gun rights are not "absolute," they can be restricted with due process of law


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me.  To put your loaded and stupid questions to rest:
> 
> The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered; we needed three amendments to the Constitution to force some States to do the right thing.  Some, with Right Wing control still work to suppress this right.



What is loaded about my question?  You confirmed it right after you said it's loaded.  My question is directly related to what you just said, you said, "The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered."

Name another right that you must be "registered" as well as licensed and pay a fee to have that right?  Or, explain why this right is different than other rights?  What is possibly unclear to you about that other than that you're a sniveling, cowardly bitch who won't man up to your own argument?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Conservative65 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
Click to expand...


Clearly you're incapable of independent thought and have been brainwashed to believe a person with an open mind and seeking solutions to age old problems is out of step with our Constitution and traditional American ethos.

Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.

You claim to be a conservative simply to have a sense of belonging, that is pitiful but not uncommon.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you're incapable of independent thought and have been brainwashed to believe a person with an open mind and seeking solutions to age old problems is out of step with our Constitution and traditional American ethos.
> 
> Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.
> 
> You claim to be a conservative simply to have a sense of belonging, that is pitiful but not uncommon.
Click to expand...


I've learned that Liberal idiots like you call anything you believe as open minded and anyone that disagrees closed minded.  

Since your opinion about me is worth less than shit in a ni66er's back yard, I'll let you figure out what it means to me.  

You support Hillary based on what's between her legs and Obama due to skin color.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me.  To put your loaded and stupid questions to rest:
> 
> The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered; we needed three amendments to the Constitution to force some States to do the right thing.  Some, with Right Wing control still work to suppress this right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is loaded about my question?  You confirmed it right after you said it's loaded.  My question is directly related to what you just said, you said, "The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered."
> 
> Name another right that you must be "registered" as well as licensed and pay a fee to have that right?  Or, explain why this right is different than other rights?  What is possibly unclear to you about that other than that you're a sniveling, cowardly bitch who won't man up to your own argument?
Click to expand...


Thanks so much for sharing, you may now claim I've runaway.  In reality I will be taking my 93 year old dad to the VA, but I know reality exists between your ears alone, in that dark cavern titled, "it's all about me"

While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you're incapable of independent though....
Click to expand...

Says the guy who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me.  To put your loaded and stupid questions to rest:
> 
> The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered; we needed three amendments to the Constitution to force some States to do the right thing.  Some, with Right Wing control still work to suppress this right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is loaded about my question?  You confirmed it right after you said it's loaded.  My question is directly related to what you just said, you said, "The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered."
> 
> Name another right that you must be "registered" as well as licensed and pay a fee to have that right?  Or, explain why this right is different than other rights?  What is possibly unclear to you about that other than that you're a sniveling, cowardly bitch who won't man up to your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing, you may now claim I've runaway.  In reality I will be taking my 93 year old dad to the VA, but I know reality exists between your ears alone, in that dark cavern titled, "it's all about me"
> 
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
Click to expand...


It's all about me?  WTF are you talking about?  I am asking you a simple question.  You keep dropping your pants to prove there is nothing inside them.  I got it, there is nothing in your pants, you can stop proving it.

The question is, Name another right that you must be "registered" as well as licensed and pay a fee to have that right?  Or, explain why this right is different than other rights?  What is possibly unclear to you about that other than that you're a sniveling, cowardly bitch who won't man up to your own argument?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.


Yes...   and your demonstrated inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty can only lead thinking people to conclude that you, along with all the other anti-gun loons, are simply another village useful idiot.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you're incapable of independent thought and have been brainwashed to believe a person with an open mind and seeking solutions to age old problems is out of step with our Constitution and traditional American ethos.
> 
> Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.
> 
> You claim to be a conservative simply to have a sense of belonging, that is pitiful but not uncommon.
Click to expand...

Renaming solutions that have failed each time they have been tried will fail again.
All rehashing failed policy will do is turn a few law abiding citizens into criminals. It will do nothing to save lives or get guns away from criminals and it may just prevent a few people from defending their lives and property.
But HELL! It would look like you were sincere about cutting down on senseless murders and it will make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you're incapable of independent thought and have been brainwashed to believe a person with an open mind and seeking solutions to age old problems is out of step with our Constitution and traditional American ethos.
> 
> Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.
> 
> You claim to be a conservative simply to have a sense of belonging, that is pitiful but not uncommon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renaming solutions that have failed each time they have been tried will fail again.
> All rehashing failed policy will do is turn a few law abiding citizens into criminals. It will do nothing to save lives or get guns away from criminals and it may just prevent a few people from defending their lives and property.
> But HELL! It would look like you were sincere about cutting down on senseless murders and it will make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy.
Click to expand...


Wry does have a good point when he points out we need to keep trying a system that isn't working rather than trying an actually different strategy, don't you think?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you're incapable of independent thought and have been brainwashed to believe a person with an open mind and seeking solutions to age old problems is out of step with our Constitution and traditional American ethos.
> 
> Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.
> 
> You claim to be a conservative simply to have a sense of belonging, that is pitiful but not uncommon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renaming solutions that have failed each time they have been tried will fail again.
> All rehashing failed policy will do is turn a few law abiding citizens into criminals. It will do nothing to save lives or get guns away from criminals and it may just prevent a few people from defending their lives and property.
> But HELL! It would look like you were sincere about cutting down on senseless murders and it will make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wry does have a good point when he points out we need to keep trying a system that isn't working rather than trying an actually different strategy, don't you think?
Click to expand...


LOL, you actually asked Ernie what he thinks?  That's hilarious, maybe you might ask Bert's opinion or even Stephanie's.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves.  Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns.  Sounds like a fetish to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you're incapable of independent thought and have been brainwashed to believe a person with an open mind and seeking solutions to age old problems is out of step with our Constitution and traditional American ethos.
> 
> Everyone judges people, by their appearance, use of language and demeanor and I have judged you as poorly educated, brainwashed and either willfully ignorant or dumb.
> 
> You claim to be a conservative simply to have a sense of belonging, that is pitiful but not uncommon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renaming solutions that have failed each time they have been tried will fail again.
> All rehashing failed policy will do is turn a few law abiding citizens into criminals. It will do nothing to save lives or get guns away from criminals and it may just prevent a few people from defending their lives and property.
> But HELL! It would look like you were sincere about cutting down on senseless murders and it will make liberals feel all warm and fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wry does have a good point when he points out we need to keep trying a system that isn't working rather than trying an actually different strategy, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you actually asked Ernie what he thinks?  That's hilarious, maybe you might ask Bert's opinion or even Stephanie's.
Click to expand...


Ernie's a pretty straight shooting guy, pun intended.  You, not so much


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.



Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?
Click to expand...


Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?
Guns killed how many people in the Unites States in a year?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite

Now, shall we discuss mass murder in the United States?

If anyone's thinking is flawed, it is yours.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?
> Guns killed how many people in the Unites States in a year?
> 
> Just the facts: Gun violence in America - U.S. News
> 
> Now, shall we discuss mass murder in the United States?
> 
> If anyone's thinking is flawed, it is yours.
Click to expand...


No one can miss a point like you can.  The point is, they got guns.  Criminals can get them too.  France has your laws and they got the guns.  This isn't terror versus other criminals, this is that gun laws don't work for either.

Again, and France has the extremely restrictive gun laws already in place you want, and over 500 people were attacked without being able to defend themselves.

Your plan didn't work.  Over 500 freaking people, how many would have been saved if they were allowed to defend themselves?

And again YOUR PLAN DIDN'T WORK.  Is there any processing going on in your brain.  Can you hear this.  YOUR PLANT DIDN'T WORK.

Terrorists got guns ... lots of them ...  Their victims followed the law.  Here's a thought, YOUR PLAN DIDN'T WORK.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?
> Guns killed how many people in the Unites States in a year?
> 
> Just the facts: Gun violence in America - U.S. News
> 
> Now, shall we discuss mass murder in the United States?
> 
> If anyone's thinking is flawed, it is yours.
Click to expand...


LOL. Not this again. 

To date 11,497 people have died this year via gun violence. The US Population is 318.9 million (estimated). You do the math.

But your dishonesty knows no bounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?
> Guns killed how many people in the Unites States in a year?
> 
> Just the facts: Gun violence in America - U.S. News
> 
> Now, shall we discuss mass murder in the United States?
> 
> If anyone's thinking is flawed, it is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Not this again.
> 
> To date 11,497 people have died this year via gun violence. The US Population is 318.9 million (estimated). You do the math.
> 
> But your dishonesty knows no bounds.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html
Click to expand...


whatever he needs to deflect from the real message in Paris.

wry's laws don't work, they don't keep guns from criminals, they only keep guns from victims..   Leftists are soulless bastards.   Sssshhhhhh..........


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?
> Guns killed how many people in the Unites States in a year?
> 
> Just the facts: Gun violence in America - U.S. News
> 
> Now, shall we discuss mass murder in the United States?
> 
> If anyone's thinking is flawed, it is yours.
Click to expand...


So be specific on this.  How do terrorists get all the guns they want, and yet you hold to that other criminals can't?


----------



## Wry Catcher

So more guns = less carnage.  Does that summarize the thinking of those above?

Consider if you will untrained citizens at a crowded event, many armed and some of those stoned or high.  Even those sober and well practiced in the use of a firearm, having no intel, will likely do what they need to do to survive..

Thus they become targets of each other, targeting anyone with a gun and increasing the carnage. When highly trained SWAT teams enter, they will engage those with guns.   Friendly fire kills, just as easily as unfriendly fire.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> So more guns = less carnage.  Does that summarize the thinking of those above?



So you liked the system where only the terrorists had guns because it would have been worse if victims had them too.  You are one ... sick ... fuck



			
				Wry Catcher said:
			
		

> Consider if you will untrained citizens at a crowded event, many armed and some of those stoned or high.  Even those sober and well practiced in the use of a firearm, having no intel, will likely do what they need to do to survive..
> 
> Thus they become targets of each other, targeting anyone with a gun and increasing the carnage. When highly trained SWAT teams enter, they will engage those with guns.   Friendly fire kills, just as easily as unfriendly fire.



OMG, you're right, 550 was a blessing!  People fighting back would have made an unfortunate situation into a tragedy!!!!!

How are you going to keep guns from criminals, Wry?

Wry:  Don't know

Why can terrorists get guns but criminals couldn't?

Wry:  Don't know

Why can't the people who bring in drugs freely to this country bring in guns with them?

Wry:  Don't know

Why would criminals not sell guns to criminals but they do to terrorists?

Wry:  Don't know

Wry:  How do you know my plan won't work if we don't fucking try it???

Wry:  Why would we want people shooting back at shooters?  Isn't the situation bad enough already!!!!!


----------



## Sarah G

ClosedCaption said:


> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh


The laws we already have could be better enforced like background checks and a waiting period even and especially for gun shows.  Tougher sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with unregistered weapons if they can't confirm where they got the weapon.  

Tougher regulation will go a long way in making sure the guns are registered and only used for what they say it will be used for. 

These people here think everyone should just trust them as far as gun ownership, no question.  I trust these particular gun owners as far as I can throw them and I'm a weak little thing despite that tractor tire tip pic I posted a couple of months ago.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?


In 2014, <8142 guns were used to murder someone.
>300,000,000 were not.
For every gun used to murder someone, >37,000 were not.
Your point, whatever it was, refuted.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> While I'm gone feel free to stroke the barrel of your gun, I'm sure doing that and day-dreaming about being a hero and killing a bad guy is the other way you spend your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's apparently a flaw in your plan.  Paris has the gun laws you want, how did this happen, Wry?  You keep telling us that gun laws work.  Yet 352 people were wounded or killed, they weren't able to defend themselves.  Is that a problem?  Or just the cost of doing business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns killed how many people in the United States yesterday?
> Guns killed how many people in the Unites States in a year?
> 
> Just the facts: Gun violence in America - U.S. News
> 
> Now, shall we discuss mass murder in the United States?
> 
> If anyone's thinking is flawed, it is yours.
Click to expand...



Yeah...lawyers learn to never ask a question they don't know the answer to...you should learn that lesson....

Mass shootings in the U.S. the facts.....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014.....  9
2013.....  36
2012.....  72
2011.....  19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......*35,369*

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013...*.38,851*

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013..*.29,001*

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...*30,208*
Accidental drowning*.....3,391*
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames*.....2,760*

*Accidental gun deaths 2013......505*


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 13 million.


----------



## 2aguy

Sarah G said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> The laws we already have could be better enforced like background checks and a waiting period even and especially for gun shows.  Tougher sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with unregistered weapons if they can't confirm where they got the weapon.
> 
> Tougher regulation will go a long way in making sure the guns are registered and only used for what they say it will be used for.
> 
> These people here think everyone should just trust them as far as gun ownership, no question.  I trust these particular gun owners as far as I can throw them and I'm a weak little thing despite that tractor tire tip pic I posted a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...



They don't have background checks in France except for hunting shotguns...because all pistols are illegal for all citizens, hence no background checks are needed......they don't need and assault weapon ban...because all rifles are completely banned for normal citizens....there is no reason to register guns...because they are all illegal except for a few hunting shotguns.......

They don't need waiting periods...because you can't legally own pistols or rifles or fully automatic rifles...and for the few hunting shotguns allowed...they have a long, long process of background checks and waiting periods in France...already....

All of the laws you mention....are already exceeded in France, and the rest of Europe....and they easily get guns


So....please explain how criminals in France and the rest of Europe and terrorists still got guns after they followed your advice and already implemented all of the gun control you just advocated in your post........


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
Click to expand...



Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
Click to expand...


No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....

See the difference?


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> The laws we already have could be better enforced like background checks and a waiting period even and especially for gun shows.  Tougher sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with unregistered weapons if they can't confirm where they got the weapon.
> 
> Tougher regulation will go a long way in making sure the guns are registered and only used for what they say it will be used for.
> 
> These people here think everyone should just trust them as far as gun ownership, no question.  I trust these particular gun owners as far as I can throw them and I'm a weak little thing despite that tractor tire tip pic I posted a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...


France has all that and more.  Care to test your theory on the streets of Paris?  Didn't work, Holmes.  before you do, provide us with next of kin so we can notify them for you


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
Click to expand...



Wry has two girlfriends, their names are Smith & Wesson...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw, man.  No one makes this argument.
> 
> In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wrong.  Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
> 
> AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
> 
> SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept settled law.
> Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left.  Then it becomes absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed?  Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade.  As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
Click to expand...



He sided with increasing the government control over the people in direct violation of the Constitution....he made up law to justify his decision....that is not the role of a judge in our Constitutional government.   And he did it twice to get obama care through the process.


----------



## 2aguy

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> To keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, a simple bill should be drawn up and debated... then inevitably passed and signed into law by the President, which simply forbids anyone with any discernible kinship with the Ideological Left to possess a firearm; wherein, it is deemed legal to summarily execute anyone of such a nature who is found to be in possession of such, or who is reasonably known to have recently BEEN in possession of such.  This would include... all teachers, professors, all homosexuals, the gender confused, government employees except the Military... which would of course need to exclude all sexual deviants and Democrats in general... all members of the media, all citizens of any Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Enterprise of kind ... City, State, what have you.  I.e.: The Democrat Party, MA, MI, VT... Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, NYC, California, Oregon, Washington, Washington DC... New Mexico, Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc... .
> 
> Sure... it will be a blood bath for a few years.  But... once the Leftists or products of left-think are eradicated... the rest will simply work itself out.
> 
> It's not like its not going to come to a blood bath inevitably, anyway.




Or registered democrats...most of the gun murder occur in voting districts that voted for obama.......


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....
> 
> See the difference?
Click to expand...


He's too busy shoving the barrel of the gun up his gay ass right now to grasp it


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech:  threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
Click to expand...


You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
Click to expand...


From the guy who can't answer a single question.

Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?

why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?

Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?

And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
Click to expand...



facts, the truth, reality.......they are not the friends of left wing anti gun extremists....French gun control shows that not one of their ideas to stop gun violence actually works on actual criminals.......

It does work like a charm on people who won't use guns to murder people though.....criminals and terrorists...not so much.


----------



## Lakhota

Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.



Again the black and white Democrat party.  Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force.  that's all you grasp.  Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...

Nice post, retard


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.




What is it with you guys and forcing people to do things......we don't want to force people to carry or own guns.....we want the government to follow the 2nd Amendment and our God given right......not force us to own or carry guns.....

You guys need a lot of work...

How about enough people owning guns in France to stop the mass shooters...that would work for us....


----------



## Lakhota

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the black and white Democrat party.  Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force.  that's all you grasp.  Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...
> 
> Nice post, retard
Click to expand...


Thank you!  That's my plan!  You asked for one!


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the black and white Democrat party.  Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force.  that's all you grasp.  Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...
> 
> Nice post, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  That's my plan!  You asked for one!
Click to expand...


And it was all you are capable of, so thank you for your normal contribution to a conversation


----------



## Lakhota

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you guys and forcing people to do things......we don't want to force people to carry or own guns.....we want the government to follow the 2nd Amendment and our God given right......not force us to own or carry guns.....
> 
> You guys need a lot of work...
> 
> How about enough people owning guns in France to stop the mass shooters...that would work for us....
Click to expand...


Funny.  I remember a veteran/student in a recent Oregon shootout who stated on live TV that he was afraid to use his concealed carry for fear of being mistaken as the shooter by the cops.  How does one deal with that? Imagine hundreds of armed Parisians in a similar situation - in the dark of night...


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you guys and forcing people to do things......we don't want to force people to carry or own guns.....we want the government to follow the 2nd Amendment and our God given right......not force us to own or carry guns.....
> 
> You guys need a lot of work...
> 
> How about enough people owning guns in France to stop the mass shooters...that would work for us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I remember a veteran/student in a recent Oregon shootout who stated on live TV that he was afraid to use his concealed carry for fear of being mistaken as the shooter by the cops.  How does one deal with that?
Click to expand...


wow, what a great point.  First someone is shooting as many people as they can, and suddenly it may turn into a bad situation.  That's quite an observation


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 6128
> Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
> Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.
> 
> That said....
> You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
> Absent the sound  illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's too busy shoving the barrel of the gun up his gay ass right now to grasp it
Click to expand...



Idiot-Gram ^^^

Does advertising that you're homophobic have anything to do with your pathological defense of guns?

I wonder if you were not molested as a child/teen, enjoyed the experience and hate yourself for doing so.  Thus you feel the need to express your manhood, but actually covet guns out of fear of the monster who molested you. 

The same thought occurs to me about 2aguy and M14; there is something incredibly wrong in your makeup and theirs, an emotional obsession that is manifest in defending guns.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
Click to expand...


This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.

35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the black and white Democrat party.  Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force.  that's all you grasp.  Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...
> 
> Nice post, retard
Click to expand...


Nice Straw Man Kaz, you're really good at being ill logical.  I'd suggest the next time you not forget to add to your post a full blown ad hominem along with the Straw Man, it's what you do and puts you in the proper genre within the idiot fringe.


----------



## Lakhota

I still have visions of hundreds of armed, scared and minimally-trained Parisians with pistols (who want to live) blasting away in the dark at highly-trained suicide terrorists with automatic weapons (who want to die). Anyone else have those visions?

What do kaz and 2aguy have to say about this?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinions aren't persuasive.  Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
> 
> Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
> 
> That ^^^ really is quite funny.
> 
> The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...we spend time defending the right to self defense...you guys focus on the gun...often in a sexual way......we defend the right...you talk about masturbating with guns....
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's too busy shoving the barrel of the gun up his gay ass right now to grasp it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot-Gram ^^^
> 
> Does advertising that you're homophobic have anything to do with your pathological defense of guns?
> 
> I wonder if you were not molested as a child/teen, enjoyed the experience and hate yourself for doing so.  Thus you feel the need to express your manhood, but actually covet guns out of fear of the monster who molested you.
> 
> The same thought occurs to me about 2aguy and M14; there is something incredibly wrong in your makeup and theirs, an emotional obsession that is manifest in defending guns.
Click to expand...



What is the wrong part of wanting innocent people to survive a violent criminal attack....that you constantly come down on the side of disarming those people, and allowing them to be brutalized with no means to stop it......how much time in the prison you are probably confined in, do they allow you on the computer?

And again...the only ones who ever talk about sex and using guns to masturbate are you, wry and the other anti gun extremists.....it really seems to absorb a lot of your time.....get help.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> I still have visions of hundreds of armed, scared and minimally-trained Parisians with pistols (who want to live) blasting away in the dark at highly-trained suicide terrorists with automatic weapons (who want to die). Anyone else have those visions?
> 
> What do kaz and 2aguy have to say about this?




And I have the reality of 3 guys murdering unarmed parisians one by one and no one having a gun to stop them..........my reality vs. your fantasy.....and your fantasy is just that....reality, in the actual events where normal people use guns to stop mass shootings, show that normal gun owners handle themselves extremely well with very little to no training....that is reality, not your fantasy....


----------



## Sarah G

Lakhota said:


> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.


Back to the wild, wild, West!


----------



## 2aguy

Sarah G said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
Click to expand...



the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....

please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...


----------



## Sarah G

2aguy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
Click to expand...

I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sarah G said:


> I believe your version of history is very convenient. Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.



And you, milady, have an unrivaled penchant for hyperbole.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
> 
> Is that true of other Constitutional rights too?  Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?"  Or is that just guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
Click to expand...


Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
Click to expand...


Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again the black and white Democrat party.  Our choices are to prevent everyone from being armed or arm everyone by force.  that's all you grasp.  Oh, and you're smarter than Republicans, you aren't all black and white like they are...
> 
> Nice post, retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice Straw Man Kaz, you're really good at being ill logical.  I'd suggest the next time you not forget to add to your post a full blown ad hominem along with the Straw Man, it's what you do and puts you in the proper genre within the idiot fringe.
Click to expand...


read his post you fucking moron, that's exactly what he said


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
Click to expand...


Civilized people go down without a fight, do you?  I wouldn't use the term civilized for you, coward or victim would be more accurate descriptions


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> I still have visions of hundreds of armed, scared and minimally-trained Parisians with pistols (who want to live) blasting away in the dark at highly-trained suicide terrorists with automatic weapons (who want to die). Anyone else have those visions?
> 
> What do kaz and 2aguy have to say about this?



that's becasue you're stupid.  no gun owners I know fit that description, and I know a lot of gun owners.

So while you're being mowed down defenseless, you plan to be civilized and die with a smile?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
> 
> Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns.  Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
Click to expand...


That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.

I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.

I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.

Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?

Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?

Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?

Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?

You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.

So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it only you anti gun extremists ever talk about guns for sex purposes.....all of you do it....and you are the only ones who do.....me thinks you doth protest to much......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
Click to expand...


So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick


----------



## Sarah G

kaz said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
Click to expand...


Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”

— exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014

The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.

The Facts:  

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
Click to expand...


I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum.  He's a dumb blonde.  I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy.  Has nothing to do with me though.

As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane?  That's where most shootings happen


----------



## Sarah G

kaz said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum.  He's a dumb blonde.  I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy.  Has nothing to do with me though.
> 
> As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane?  That's where most shootings happen
Click to expand...

I was just correcting your view on history in the wild West.  Try and keep up.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Lie!  (you have never proved your ability to actually think).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
Click to expand...


Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.

I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

How difficult is that for you to comprehend?


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum.  He's a dumb blonde.  I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy.  Has nothing to do with me though.
> 
> As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane?  That's where most shootings happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just correcting your view on history in the wild West.  Try and keep up.
Click to expand...


WTF?  I didn't say anything about the "wild west."  Stop making shit up


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...


And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?


----------



## Sarah G

kaz said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum.  He's a dumb blonde.  I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy.  Has nothing to do with me though.
> 
> As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane?  That's where most shootings happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just correcting your view on history in the wild West.  Try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  I didn't say anything about the "wild west."  Stop making shit up
Click to expand...


You don't seem to understand what you are responding to.

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan? | Page 626 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
Click to expand...


Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.

Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?

You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:

Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's

http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf


----------



## 2aguy

Sarah G said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
Click to expand...



Wrong….the gun control rules in Wyatt Earps town only worked when the criminals wanted to obey the law….remember, his brother was shot and crippled by a gunman who didn't follow the rules……..

Please….try to do some research…..the Wild West wasn't wild because people carried guns and attacking others was made harder by that…..

Gun control only works on people who want to follow the law…France proved that….they have all the gun laws you guys want…and more…they ban everything except for a few hunting shotguns for rich sportsmen…..and none of it stopped the slaughter….


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.
> 
> Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?
> 
> You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:
> 
> Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's
> 
> http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf
Click to expand...



again….a license is useless and pointless and simply creates a criminal out of a normal gun owner who fails to file the right paperwork…..


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...



This is why gun licensing is stupid, useless and a waste of time…..do you think the terrorists in France got a license for their illegal, fully automatic rifles and grenades?

Several clerical error cases are discussed in this article besides what is highlighted.


Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

*ottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)*

Traditionally, penalties for _malum prohibitum_ acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.

If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.


----------



## 2aguy

Sarah G said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my plan: Give everyone a gun at birth - and make everyone carry a gun outside their home.  Everyone!  Just think if everyone in Paris had been packing a gun.  Imagine everyone blasting away in the dark.  It just gives me goosebumps.  God bless the gun nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
Click to expand...



Yeah…try to do some research……Tombstone had gun crime when the criminals decided to do gun crime….their gun laws only worked on those who wanted to obey them…….more stupidity from anti gunners……..

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law the anti gun extremists always point to…

*Relevant law in Tombstone[edit]*
To reduce crime in Tombstone, on April 19, 1881, the Tombstone's city council passed ordinance #9 requiring anyone carrying a bowie knife, dirk, pistol or rifle[31][32] to deposit their weapons at a livery or saloon soon after entering town. The ordinance was the legal basis for City Marshal Virgil Earp's decision to confront the Cowboys that resulted in the shoot out.[33]


And how well did that law actually work…..

Doc didn't follow the law…

*Cowboys accuse Holliday of robbery[edit]*
Milt Joyce, a county supervisor and owner of the Oriental Saloon, had a contentious relationship with Doc Holliday. In October 1880, Holliday had trouble with a gambler named Johnny Tyler in Milt Joyce's Oriental Saloon. Tyler had been hired by a competing gambling establishment to drive customers from the Oriental Saloon.[26] Holliday challenged Tyler to a fight, but Tyler ran. Joyce did not like Holliday or the Earps and he continued to argue with Holliday. 

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. 

Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe. Joyce then hit Holliday over the head with his revolver.[71] Holliday was arrested and pleaded guilty to assault and battery.[72]

Yeah…..those gun control laws really worked…..

ANd more gun control that failed…..

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. 

*By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.*
* He told others he was looking for Holliday or an Earp.*


At about 1:00 pm, Virgil and Morgan Earp surprised Ike on 4th Street where Virgil pistol-whipped him from behind. Disarming him, the Earps took Ike to appear before Judge Wallace for violating the ordinance. Wyatt waited with Clanton while Virgil went to find Judge Wallace so the court hearing could be held.[37]

*Tom McLaury's concealed weapon[edit*

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. 

*Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. *

*When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw a revolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants*


.[77] As an unpaid deputy marshal for Virgil, Wyatt habitually carried a pistol in his waistband, as was the custom of that time. Witnesses reported that Wyatt drew his revolver from his coat pocket and pistol whipped Tom McLaury with it twice, leaving him prostrate and bleeding on the street. Saloon-keeper Andrew Mehan testified at the Spicer hearing afterward that he saw McLaury deposit a revolver at the Capital Saloon sometime between 1-2:00 pm, after the confrontation with Wyatt, which Mehan also witnessed.[7]

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

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.


* By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190*


Do you see why you shouldn't listen to gun grabbers or take hollywood as your source for history….?

And more violations that led to the famous shoot out…that's right…remember the famous shoot out in Tombstone…the town that banned guns…..?


Virgil testified later that Behan told them, "For God's sake, don't go down there or they will murder you!"[79] Wyatt said Behan told him and Morgan, "I have disarmed them."[37]Behan testified afterward that he'd only said he'd gone down to the Cowboys "for the purpose of disarming them," not that he'd actually disarmed them.[

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

When Virgil saw the Cowboys, he testified he said he immediately commanded the Cowboys to "Throw up your hands, I want your guns!"[79] Wyatt said Virgil told the Cowboys, "Throw up your hands; I have come to disarm you!"[37] 

Virgil and Wyatt both testified they saw Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton draw and cock their six-shooters.[79] Virgil yelled: "Hold! I don't mean that!"[75]:172–173 or "Hold on, I don't want that!"[79] The single-action revolverscarried by both groups had to be cocked before firing.

Jeff Morey, who served as the historical consultant on the film Tombstone, compared testimony by partisan and neutral witnesses and came to the conclusion that the Earps described the situation accurately.[90][92]

*Who started shooting first is not certain; accounts by both participants and eyewitnesses are contradictory.*[93] The smoke from the black powder used in the weapons added to the confusion of the gunfight in the narrow space.[80]Those loyal to one side or the other told conflicting stories, and independent eyewitnesses who did not know the participants by sight were unable to say for certain who shot first.

Yeah….that gun control worked in Tombstone…right?

Billy Clanton

Both Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton were armed with Colt Frontier 1873 revolvers which were identified by their serial numbers at the Spicer hearing. C.S. Fly found Billy Clanton's empty revolver in his hand where he lay and took it from him.[90]

Frank McLaury
Frank McLaury's revolver was recovered by laundryman B. E. Fellehy on the street a few feet from his body with two rounds remaining in it. Fellehy placed it next to Frank's body before he was moved to the Harwood house. Dr. Mathews laid Frank's revolver on the floor while he examined Billy and Tom. Cowboy witness Wes Fuller said he saw Frank in the middle of the street shooting a revolver, and trying to remove a Winchester rifle from the scabbard on his horse. The two Model 1873 rifles were still in the scabbards on Frank and Tom's horses when they were found after the gunfight.[7] If, as was customary, Frank carried only five rounds, then he fired only three shots.[54]


----------



## Wry Catcher

2aguy said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the wild, wild, West!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the west was not wild....you have your understanding of the west from movies, not historical reality...people carried guns and so were required to be more civil to each other...even in places without state sanctioned law enforcement the settlers and coal miners established groups to enforce order....
> 
> please...do some research...and that doesn't include Hollywood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe your version of history is very convenient.  Everyone had guns and it was a very violent time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong….the gun control rules in Wyatt Earps town only worked when the criminals wanted to obey the law….remember, his brother was shot and crippled by a gunman who didn't follow the rules……..
> 
> Please….try to do some research…..the Wild West wasn't wild because people carried guns and attacking others was made harder by that…..
> 
> Gun control only works on people who want to follow the law…France proved that….they have all the gun laws you guys want…and more…they ban everything except for a few hunting shotguns for rich sportsmen…..and none of it stopped the slaughter….
Click to expand...




2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.
> 
> Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?
> 
> You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:
> 
> Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's
> 
> http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again….a license is useless and pointless and simply creates a criminal out of a normal gun owner who fails to file the right paperwork…..
Click to expand...


Does a license make a criminal out of everyone who drives a motor vehicle?  Does it make a criminal out of every doctor or dentist who practices his or her craft?  

It is a waste of time to offer any more of a rebuttal than this ^^^; as you will continue to post banal comments repetitively,


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.
> 
> Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?
> 
> You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:
> 
> Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's
> 
> http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf
Click to expand...


You pretend that every person that wants to carry does so because they're scared and/or paranoid.  


Read up on the 2nd amendment.

I've asked a similar question before based on your views of gun control laws.  What type of license would the person that stole the gun from my locked vehicle go and get in order to have that gun?


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  What is wrong with you people that the only other option of no one having guns is "everyone" having guns?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should do some research.  Gun control within the city limits kept crime down there but other places had more crime and violence.  So, gun control helps.
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> BOB SCHIEFFER:_“Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we’re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we’re headed here?” _
> 
> FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-Pa.): “You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carry guns.”
> 
> — exchange on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” April 27, 2014
> 
> The Hollywood version of the Wild West is at the core of this exchange on Face the Nation, so perhaps it’s time for a history lesson. One-time presidential candidate Rick Santorum asserted that gun crimes were low back then because people had the right to carry guns. But he actually has the story backward.
> 
> The Facts:
> 
> Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I care more about what Hillary thinks than Rick Santorum.  He's a dumb blonde.  I didn't even read it, I'll stipulate to his idiocy.  Has nothing to do with me though.
> 
> As for that gun laws help in cities, are you completely freaking insane?  That's where most shootings happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just correcting your view on history in the wild West.  Try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  I didn't say anything about the "wild west."  Stop making shit up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand what you are responding to.
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan? | Page 626 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


And?  I didn't talk about the wild west in that post, I talked about you being a lemming


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.
> 
> Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?
> 
> You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:
> 
> Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's
> 
> http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf
Click to expand...


Once again you answer a straight question with subterfuge and then don't get why no one knows what you are arguing


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the guy who can't answer a single question.
> 
> Like ... why can terrorists get guns but criminals can't?
> 
> why were there 192 murders and 550 wounded or killed in a country that follows the laws you advocate?
> 
> Why can't the criminals who freely import drugs not freely import guns to go with them?
> 
> And you talk about someone thinking, while you run away and hide like the little girl you are every time you're asked an inconvenient question to your shallow position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...

Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?
I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Conservative65 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.
> 
> Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?
> 
> You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:
> 
> Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's
> 
> http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that every person that wants to carry does so because they're scared and/or paranoid.
> 
> 
> Read up on the 2nd amendment.
> 
> I've asked a similar question before based on your views of gun control laws.  What type of license would the person that stole the gun from my locked vehicle go and get in order to have that gun?
Click to expand...


Criminals won't need a license to steal, so your question is silly.  

I don't pretend EVERY person that wants to carry a gun is paranoid or scared, some are and some are the ones most likely to whine about any effort to control the proliferation of guns in America.

To go a bit further, it is my opinion that a gun owner who does not properly secure a gun which is then stolen is culpable when the gun has been used to harm or kill another.

Not necessarily criminally culpable, but civilly so.  A gun in a locked glove compartment in a locked car is not IMO sufficiently secured.


----------



## Lakhota

Which is worse - everyone screaming at a crowded concert or everyone shooting at a crowded concert?  Shooting into those terrorist suicide vests packed full of explosives would be exciting.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?
> I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised.  Liberals create in some cognitive dissonance, that you have never been known to cogitate, it's unlikely you would ever be aware enough to be affected by anything thoughtful.


----------



## Ernie S.

So no relevant response? Just as I thought.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.



Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt". 

Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"

and,

"I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"  

Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you would let us carry concealed guns in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you, you're a lunatic.  But those who have a need, of course.  But not every paranoid lunatic, such as those too scared to go to the grocery store unless armed.
> 
> Not every driver's license is sufficient to drive an 18-wheeler, why should only one form of license cover every person who wants to own and carry a gun concealed?
> 
> You should know all of this, and yet you continue to pretend the 2nd A. is a right which would be infringed if a license is required:
> 
> Read up on the 1986 Gun Act, and FFL's
> 
> http://www.targetworld.net/Steps for buying NFA (Class III Weaponry) 11-3-07.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that every person that wants to carry does so because they're scared and/or paranoid.
> 
> 
> Read up on the 2nd amendment.
> 
> I've asked a similar question before based on your views of gun control laws.  What type of license would the person that stole the gun from my locked vehicle go and get in order to have that gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals won't need a license to steal, so your question is silly.
> 
> I didn't say they needed a license to steal.  I said what license do they have for possessing the gun.  That's what you don't get.
> 
> I don't pretend EVERY person that wants to carry a gun is paranoid or scared, some are and some are the ones most likely to whine about any effort to control the proliferation of guns in America.
> 
> To go a bit further, it is my opinion that a gun owner who does not properly secure a gun which is then stolen is culpable when the gun has been used to harm or kill another.
> 
> Not necessarily criminally culpable, but civilly so.  A gun in a locked glove compartment in a locked car is not IMO sufficiently secured.
Click to expand...


The key word is LOCKED in a place for which the criminal shouldn't go and to you that's not enough.  Your opinion, much like your existence, amounts to the level of shit in a n*gger's back yard.  If my gun is in my locked vehicle on my private property, a place a criminal shouldn't go, it's secured.   Don't like it, tough shit.  

Again, what you support being applied to those of us who legally own guns does not apply to the criminals.  So sad.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".
> 
> Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"
> 
> and,
> 
> "I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"
> 
> Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.
Click to expand...


You much like you "feel" that a gun in a locked car on private property isn't secured?  

You're not worthy of the air you breathe.


----------



## 2aguy

There is an actual solution to gun crime.  When someone breaks the law with a gun, lock them up for a long time.  It is really just that simple.  Also, it actually targets criminals.  Gun grabbing extremists focus all of their efforts in making felony traps out of clerical errors for normal people who want to own guns…..and if they fail to get the right paperwork….the gun grabbers want to destroy their lives…..

Criminals…not so much…..


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.


You have also never soundly argued for the necessity of either.
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.


----------



## Ernie S.

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".
> 
> Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"
> 
> and,
> 
> "I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"
> 
> Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.


----------



## 2aguy

We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...


----------



## Lakhota

2aguy said:


> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...



Only if their intended purpose is to kill.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
Click to expand...



Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..


----------



## Lakhota

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..
Click to expand...


You gun nutters are running on empty.  Seriously.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gun nutters are running on empty.  Seriously.
Click to expand...



Says the guy who supports the gun control measures that completely failed in France…...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".
> 
> Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"
> 
> and,
> 
> "I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"
> 
> Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
> Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.
Click to expand...


Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered.  However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:

Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?

Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.  

Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS,  but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.

Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).

So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?


You have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?
> 
> 
> 
> You have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
> That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.
Click to expand...


Your limitations sure handicap your efforts to write a cogent rebuttal to gun control regulations seeking to find a middle ground to mitigate gun violence in America.

It must be frustrating for someone like you who can't formulate a defense for the proliferation of guns in America, and the numbers of too many guns ending up in the hands of mass murderers, rapists, robbers, abusers, parolees and ne'er-do-wells.


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA gun nutters should remember one thing:  The Second Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  The Second Amendment is not absolute - even nutty Scalia said that.  The winds of change will eventually prompt SCOTUS to adopt more restrictive gun measures.  That is why "compromise" is preferable to having a never-give-an-inch philosophy on gun control measures.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?
> 
> 
> 
> You have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
> That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your limitations sure handicap your efforts to write a cogent rebuttal to gun control regulations seeking to find a middle ground to mitigate gun violence in America.
Click to expand...

Nothing here changes the fact that you have never soundly argued for the necessity of licensing gun owners or registering firearms..
That being the case, there is no sound argument for the constitutionality of either.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> The NRA gun nutters should remember one thing:  The Second Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.


Same for those who support Obamacare.
Same for those who support same-sex marriage.
same for those who support abortion on demand.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is likely over your head, and that of the others who use a non sequitur, beg the question, build straw man and attack the person rather than the argument of those who offer alternatives to gun controls; I offer it without any expectation you will understand it or respond honestly.
> 
> 35. Fallacy of Many Questions |  | The Fallacy-a-Day PodcastThe Fallacy-a-Day Podcast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you evade and deflect.  They follow your rules in France, you told us criminals couldn't get guns then, what happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you must lie, and do so as if you can fool anyone but fools like you is funny.
> 
> I have never even suggested criminals / terrorists could never get guns if we licensed gun owners and registered firearms.   Stating I have is a damn lie.
> 
> I have posted repeatedly, laws do not prevent crimes, they dissuade and expostulate but cannot stop all crime.
> 
> Do the Ten Commandments prevent murder, adultery or theft?
> 
> Do speed limits prevent speeders from speeding?
> 
> Does the warning on a package of cigarettes prevent fools from smoking?
> 
> Does the threat of punishment dissuade and deter some not to kill, steal, speed or fuck indiscriminately?
> 
> You bet it does, but it has no power to prevent such behavior.
> 
> So you might as well stop lying, you won't chase me away or censor my opinions by bearing false witness against me.  But if God exists and enforces the Ten, you sure as heck won't go to heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit gun laws don't stop criminals or terrorists from getting guns, but you still want to disarm their victims?  Um ... dude ... that's sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you lie, I have no desire to disarm anyone, at least anyone who abides by the law.
> 
> I simply support a law to require anyone to have a license who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.
> 
> Of course if that became the law, those who fail to secure such a license are de facto criminals should they ever own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.
> 
> How difficult is that for you to comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?
> I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here.
Click to expand...


Don't forget to charge them a fee, they are OK with fees for Constitutional rights


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
Click to expand...


So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...


----------



## Lakhota

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
Click to expand...

Of COURSE guns are undersigned to, among other things, kill other people. -- that's why our right to them is protected by the constitution,.


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".
> 
> Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"
> 
> and,
> 
> "I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"
> 
> Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
> Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered.  However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:
> 
> Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?
> 
> Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.
> 
> Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS,  but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.
> 
> Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).
> 
> So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?
Click to expand...



what does a license for owning a gun do to stop or prevent gun crime, or mass shooting....France did not even license fully automatic rifles or pistols, and hunting shotguns are hard to get a license for......so France did what you want Wry...how did that work out for them.......and Denmark, and Sweden....and Belgium....


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".
> 
> Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"
> 
> and,
> 
> "I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"
> 
> Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
> Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered.  However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:
> 
> Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?
> 
> Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.
> 
> Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS,  but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.
> 
> Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).
> 
> So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?
Click to expand...



also...requiring a fee and a test to exercise the right to vote are already unconstitutional...so requiring a fee and a test to exercise the 2nd Amendment is also unconstitutional...unlike car dealers and pilots...


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no relevant response? Just as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't exaggerate, better to be honest and edit your remark to, "Just as I felt".
> 
> Your post:  "Do you have a license to express your opinion on a message board?"
> 
> and,
> 
> "I believe Liberals should obtain one before posting here"
> 
> Are at best desultory, and IMO are two idiot-grams not worthy of a relevant response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are fine with licensing only some rights granted by our Constitution and when challenged on that, resort to personal attacks.
> Gotcha! I surrender. There is no way to reason with empty arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool, I like the fact that you've surrendered.  However, before you leave to lick your wounds answer this:
> 
> Q.  Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?
> 
> Granted, no one has the right to drive, or a right to work or play in any of the other vocations / avocations listed above.
> 
> Granted, they are not a right specifically guaranteed by the COTUS,  but that right (the 2nd. A.) already has been deemed not to restrict some forms of licensing (FFL's for example) and restrictions passed by States as well as the Federal Government.
> 
> Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).
> 
> So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?
Click to expand...




How did licensing protect the French?


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
Click to expand...


Again, the black and white leftist grasps only one option.  Guns are only for killing or the are "only" for target practice.  Let's face it, redskin, you are a stupid, stupid man, a complete simpleton


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?



Why are they relevant to this discussion? That's like asking "Why is a polar bear white?"


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Licensing does not make anyone a criminal, it does provide a level of protection to the general public (protecting the common defense and promoting the general welfare).



But in your case, you'll use licensing to label people of a certain inclination. It's not about protection, it's about labels and classification.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> So why is there so much anger associated with efforts to reduce gun violence in the United States?



Is that really what you're after? The anger is focused on the unconstitutionality of the way you want to reduce gun violence. If you read the news instead of cherrypicking it, you'll notice that many of these people are nutcases. 

The best way to reduce gun violence is focus on the mental health of the people, not using the "a nutcase with a gun killed a bunch of people" excuse to take away or restrict the gun rights of perfectly sane, law abiding individuals.


----------



## kaz

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of COURSE guns are undersigned to, among other things, kill other people. -- that's why our right to them is protected by the constitution,.
Click to expand...


The idiocy is that for all the purposes guns serve, target practice, defense, hunting, collecting, etc., he's allowing us to pick only one.  It's not worth trying to move past the stupidity that is our redskin friend


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Your limitations sure handicap your efforts to write a cogent rebuttal to gun control regulations seeking to find a middle ground to mitigate gun violence in America.



We already have. But your inability to listen makes finding a middle ground difficult. A cogent rebuttal to gun control of any kind would be "fuck off."

However, since I'm trying to act like a gentleman, I'll put it to you this way:

There are certain restrictions we agree with, but we don't agree with _more_ restrictions. We propose in counter that we see to the mental health of our citizens, minimize the chance of an unstable character getting his hands on a firearm instead of such a knee-jerk reaction.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Some form of gun control - or people control - seem rational, at least to rational people.



Ha! See what a little spelunking in a thread like this can do?

You stated clearly your case here. Wow. "People control"... what a concept.


----------



## TemplarKormac

RetiredGySgt said:


> 72 pages and not one post by the gun grabbers addressing the Ops question.



631 by my count now, still the same. No real suggestions...


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> Which is worse - everyone screaming at a crowded concert or everyone shooting at a crowded concert?  Shooting into those terrorist suicide vests packed full of explosives would be exciting.



which is better - screaming at someone trying to kill you or being able to shoot at them?


----------



## kaz

Sarah G said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys on a Message board don't have an answer on drafting a bill?  Well that settles it...There is no solution if one cant be found here by gosh
> 
> 
> 
> The laws we already have could be better enforced like background checks and a waiting period even and especially for gun shows.  Tougher sentencing for criminals who commit crimes with unregistered weapons if they can't confirm where they got the weapon.
> 
> Tougher regulation will go a long way in making sure the guns are registered and only used for what they say it will be used for.
> 
> These people here think everyone should just trust them as far as gun ownership, no question.  I trust these particular gun owners as far as I can throw them and I'm a weak little thing despite that tractor tire tip pic I posted a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...


they do all that and more in France, how'd that work out for you?  It's the point we keep making


----------



## kaz

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q. Why do we license drivers, pilots, doctors and dentists, radio broadcasters, fisherman and hunters, attorney's and real estate sales personnel, those who sell cars, insurance and those who drive cabs, limos and school buses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they relevant to this discussion? That's like asking "Why is a polar bear white?"
Click to expand...


Also, none of those are Constitutional rights


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh…so you are stupid about the 1st Amendment the same way you are stupid about the 2nd….thanks for clarifying your stupidity…..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You gun nutters are running on empty.  Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who supports the gun control measures that completely failed in France…...
Click to expand...


Redskin's motto  if fail spectacularly, fail often


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
Click to expand...


So when does your plan start working?

So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!

So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...

Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?


----------



## Wilbur Right

kaz said:


> You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man. But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town. So where does the guy go? Where there are no guns!








thats odd. I was just on the web site for the Sherrif department of Kalamazoo and there seemed to be the ability to purchase and carry a gun in Kalamazoo.

Even open carry is permitted. At least in MI.


----------



## kaz

Wilbur Right said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man. But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town. So where does the guy go? Where there are no guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats odd. I was just on the web site for the Sherrif department of Kalamazoo and there seemed to be the ability to purchase and carry a gun in Kalamazoo.
> 
> Even open carry is permitted. At least in MI.
Click to expand...


I was speaking in general of the shootings.  In Kalamazoo there is open carry so shooters know who can shoot back and take them out first or go somewhere else.

All your laws are reverse of logic


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
Click to expand...

The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree. 

This is beyond stupid, which is probably why the gentleman posting his drivel calls those who disagree with him "you morons."  It is something that even ten-year-olds understand happens only on TV. The pathetic grownups who put out these fantasies to justify their insane interpretation of the Second Amendment are co-dependent with the criminals and psychos who take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year. We, the People, who let these deluded gun fetishists get away with such murderous nonsense have our own share of responsibility as well.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree



There is no such assumption, you're a fucking idiot.  The idea here is that had the general law abiding population been allowed to better defend themselves, it would have been a lot more dangerous for the guy to kill as many people as he did.  your strawman is just retarded.  You're the 10 year old


----------



## Arizona Willie

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree.
> 
> This is beyond stupid, which is probably why the gentleman posting his drivel calls those who disagree with him "you morons."  It is something that even ten-year-olds understand happens only on TV. The pathetic grownups who put out these fantasies to justify their insane interpretation of the Second Amendment are co-dependent with the criminals and psychos who take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year. We, the People, who let these deluded gun fetishists get away with such murderous nonsense have our own share of responsibility as well.
Click to expand...

=====

Guns on TV.

Yeah you gotta love it when the criminals jump in a car and take off and the luscious female detective runs into the street and fires her snub nose 38 at the car traveling 100 mph two blocks away and hits the driver or one of the rear tires and JUSTICE TRIUMPS AGAIN.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pathetic grownups who put out these fantasies to justify their insane interpretation of the Second Amendment are co-dependent with the criminals and psychos who take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year.
Click to expand...

Insane interpretation of the Second Amendment? What's to misinterpret. What part of "Shall not be infringed" are you having trouble wrapping your vacant skull around?


----------



## longknife




----------



## 2aguy

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree.
> 
> This is beyond stupid, which is probably why the gentleman posting his drivel calls those who disagree with him "you morons."  It is something that even ten-year-olds understand happens only on TV. The pathetic grownups who put out these fantasies to justify their insane interpretation of the Second Amendment are co-dependent with the criminals and psychos who take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year. We, the People, who let these deluded gun fetishists get away with such murderous nonsense have our own share of responsibility as well.
Click to expand...



People who carry guns for self defense are more aware of their surroundings, and what to do if they are shot at.....people who do not own guns and do not get self defense lessons don't know what to do.......

So just knowing how to use a gun gives you a huge advantage over people who never own or carry guns.....the first thing you are taught is to take cover...and you learn that guns are not death rays and you learn exactly what their limitations are...and what they sound like...so when you hear the shots being fired, you catch on more quickly and that might just save your life....

twit.


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree.
> 
> This is beyond stupid, which is probably why the gentleman posting his drivel calls those who disagree with him "you morons."  It is something that even ten-year-olds understand happens only on TV. The pathetic grownups who put out these fantasies to justify their insane interpretation of the Second Amendment are co-dependent with the criminals and psychos who take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year. We, the People, who let these deluded gun fetishists get away with such murderous nonsense have our own share of responsibility as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People who carry guns for self defense are more aware of their surroundings, and what to do if they are shot at.....people who do not own guns and do not get self defense lessons don't know what to do.......
> 
> So just knowing how to use a gun gives you a huge advantage over people who never own or carry guns.....the first thing you are taught is to take cover...and you learn that guns are not death rays and you learn exactly what their limitations are...and what they sound like...so when you hear the shots being fired, you catch on more quickly and that might just save your life....
> 
> twit.
Click to expand...


Fishlore pictures Rambo.  We're definitely safer with him not carrying a gun, I'll give him that


----------



## boilermaker55

So when does it dawn on foolish idiot-morons like you that with all the guns we carry in this country and the murder rate we have, unlike other industrialized nations; we have to many fucking guns.




kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to license people who write books, use computers or use the internet…..just in case they might use their 1st Amendment rights to commit a crime…...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

boilermaker55 said:


> So when does it dawn on foolish idiot-morons like you that with all the guns we carry in this country and the murder rate we have, unlike other industrialized nations; we have to many fucking guns



So when does it down on foolish idiot-morons like you that the problem isn't the number of guns in honest citizens hands, it's the ones in criminals's hands and all your laws do is ensure the criminals meet less resistance when they commit crimes?


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if their intended purpose is to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that the only purpose of shooting a projectile is to "kill."  You are one ... sick ... fuck ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure guns were only invented for target practice.  Speaking of sickness...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when does your plan start working?
> 
> So let me tell you about Kalamazoo (my home town, hence "kaz").  You go outside the city of Kalamazoo and try that shit and you're a dead man.  But everyone knows you can't take guns into Kalamazoo, liberal college town.  So where does the guy go?  Where there are no guns!
> 
> So he goes around shooting people and no one shoots back.  Just like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, the Washington Navy Yard, Virginia Tech ...
> 
> Does at some point it dawn on you morons to notice a pattern?  Gun free zone, more victims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree.
> 
> This is beyond stupid, which is probably why the gentleman posting his drivel calls those who disagree with him "you morons."  It is something that even ten-year-olds understand happens only on TV. The pathetic grownups who put out these fantasies to justify their insane interpretation of the Second Amendment are co-dependent with the criminals and psychos who take the lives of thousands of innocent Americans every year. We, the People, who let these deluded gun fetishists get away with such murderous nonsense have our own share of responsibility as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> =====
> 
> Guns on TV.
> 
> Yeah you gotta love it when the criminals jump in a car and take off and the luscious female detective runs into the street and fires her snub nose 38 at the car traveling 100 mph two blocks away and hits the driver or one of the rear tires and JUSTICE TRIUMPS AGAIN.
Click to expand...


I missed that one.  What show was it on?


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such assumption, you're a fucking idiot.  The idea here is that had the general law abiding population been allowed to better defend themselves, it would have been a lot more dangerous for the guy to kill as many people as he did.  your strawman is just retarded.  You're the 10 year old
Click to expand...

You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer. I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.


----------



## boilermaker55

You made a correlation. That was a correlation




kaz said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it dawn on foolish idiot-morons like you that with all the guns we carry in this country and the murder rate we have, unlike other industrialized nations; we have to many fucking guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it down on foolish idiot-morons like you that the problem isn't the number of guns in honest citizens hands, it's the ones in criminals's hands and all your laws do is ensure the criminals meet less resistance when they commit crimes?
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.



When you say things like this:



Fishlore said:


> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree



You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap



Fishlore said:


> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.



Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.

And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do


----------



## kaz

boilermaker55 said:


> You made a correlation. That was a correlation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it dawn on foolish idiot-morons like you that with all the guns we carry in this country and the murder rate we have, unlike other industrialized nations; we have to many fucking guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it down on foolish idiot-morons like you that the problem isn't the number of guns in honest citizens hands, it's the ones in criminals's hands and all your laws do is ensure the criminals meet less resistance when they commit crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Whatever you say.  If you ever want to make a coherent point you know where to find me


----------



## Londoner

On the OP's logic, there should be no laws against speeding, drunk driving, pedophilia, torture and terrorism because those laws don't prevent 100% of the crimes they are seeking to address. 

If having tighter background checks prevents 1 mentally disabled gun-nut from shooting up a school, the law is worth it, especially if it doesn't limit the rights of law abiding people who are not mentally ill.

(Help. The OP represents the collective intellect of those who are nominating the next president. This is the same group of people who gave us Bush 43 and the irreversible destabilization of the Middle East, and the destruction of the housing and financial markets, and the largest, most secretive surveillance bureaucracy this side of the Soviet Union. God help us.)


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> On the OP's logic, there should be no laws against speeding, drunk driving, pedophilia, torture and terrorism because those laws don't prevent 100% of the crimes they are seeking to address



That's just stupid.  My point was that all gun laws do is keep them from law abiding citizens making law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves from criminals with guns.  Criminals don't follow the laws, law abiding citizens do.  In what possible way does that have anything to do with any of the other things you mentioned?


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> If having tighter background checks prevents 1 mentally disabled gun-nut from shooting up a school, the law is worth it



The standard you set for yourself.  It doesn't matter how many people die from a law as long as it saves one person!!!!



Londoner said:


> especially if it doesn't limit the rights of law abiding people who are not mentally ill


It does.  Do you really need a list of the shootings in gun free zones AGAIN at this point?



Londoner said:


> (Help. The OP represents the collective intellect of those who are nominating the next president. This is the same group of people who gave us Bush 43 and the irreversible destabilization of the Middle East, and the destruction of the housing and financial markets, and the largest, most secretive surveillance bureaucracy this side of the Soviet Union. God help us.)


Dick sucker.  BTW, I didn't vote for W, I opposed the Iraq invasion and nation building in Afghanistan, I opposed the government pressure to lend to sub prime and I'm against government spying on people without warrants.

this isn't your day, is it genius?


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
Click to expand...

Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.

Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap


kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
Click to expand...

You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam. 

You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.
> 
> Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam.
> 
> You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!
Click to expand...


I like how you acknowledge I realized correctly you were claiming to be a gun owner and yet you call me stupid even though I was right.  Classic.  And I said you're actually not one, BTW.

And no one who thinks gun owners think this:

"The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic fire that would have ended the crime spree"

is an actual gun owner.  So you own guns, so you know how sick gun owners are, but not you, you're sane, but you know how gun owners are because you are one.

Liberals are awful liars, you need to just give it up


----------



## Timmy

How do gun laws keep guns from the law abiding ? That doesn't make sense .  If they are law abiding they will then get thier gun.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.
> 
> Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam.
> 
> You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!
Click to expand...

You were a soldier. We get it. People wanted to shoot you, so you shot them first. Congratulations. We're not talking about war here. We're talking about assholes with knives that want to cut your heart out and take your property. I carry a gun, thank you, so I still have my heart and my property. Thankfully once the gentlemen saw that they were.... let's say, out gunned, they both decided to abandon their plan and became quite compliant. No. I've never taken a life, but on 2 occasions, I was under a second from being forced to.


----------



## kaz

Timmy said:


> How do gun laws keep guns from the law abiding ? That doesn't make sense .  If they are law abiding they will then get thier gun.



Having a gun at home in your safe isn't having a gun.  Why is it that shooter after shooter goes to a gun free zone?  We're referring to all those restrictions, not just the technical aspect of whether you are allowed to own a gun or not


----------



## Timmy

kaz said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do gun laws keep guns from the law abiding ? That doesn't make sense .  If they are law abiding they will then get thier gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a gun at home in your safe isn't having a gun.  Why is it that shooter after shooter goes to a gun free zone?  We're referring to all those restrictions, not just the technical aspect of whether you are allowed to own a gun or not
Click to expand...


Was that über shooter in a gun free zone ?  Most shootings are out in the streets . Not gun free zones .


----------



## kaz

Timmy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do gun laws keep guns from the law abiding ? That doesn't make sense .  If they are law abiding they will then get thier gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a gun at home in your safe isn't having a gun.  Why is it that shooter after shooter goes to a gun free zone?  We're referring to all those restrictions, not just the technical aspect of whether you are allowed to own a gun or not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that über shooter in a gun free zone ?  Most shootings are out in the streets . Not gun free zones .
Click to expand...


I accept your challenge.  The subject are mass murder "shootings."

Gun free zones:  Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, San Bernardino, The Oregon Community College

Off the top of my head  Your turn


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Shooting at Vermont Gun Range Exposes Safety Loophole
When Veronica Lewis walked into a Vermont Target Sports last week and asked to shoot a gun, she wasn’t required to pass a background check. If she had been, the check would have turned up the native New Yorker’s lengthy criminal rap sheet and a state order that explicitly prohibits her from possessing firearms. But she wasn’t, and after finishing a gun safety course, Lewisopened fire on instructor Darryl Montague, critically wounding him, before making off with the .22-caliber handgun.
It’s not the first time a person otherwise barred from possessing a firearm has committed a crime at a shooting range.


----------



## kaz

Timmy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do gun laws keep guns from the law abiding ? That doesn't make sense .  If they are law abiding they will then get thier gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a gun at home in your safe isn't having a gun.  Why is it that shooter after shooter goes to a gun free zone?  We're referring to all those restrictions, not just the technical aspect of whether you are allowed to own a gun or not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that über shooter in a gun free zone ?  Most shootings are out in the streets . Not gun free zones .
Click to expand...


Nope, "the streets" where most guns happen are in blue cities with strict gun laws


----------



## John93JK

sigh, let us be sad for michigan and let us just move on. guns in America will always be a high level problem.


----------



## kaz

John93JK said:


> sigh, let us be sad for michigan and let us just move on. guns in America will always be a high level problem.



What does that even mean?


----------



## Wilbur Right

kaz said:


> Nope, "the streets" where most guns happen are in blue cities with strict gun laws



QUOTE="kaz, post: 13587186, member: 26616"]What does that even mean?[/QUOTE]


Yea, what does it mean?


----------



## kaz

Wilbur Right said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, "the streets" where most guns happen are in blue cities with strict gun laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE="kaz, post: 13587186, member: 26616"]What does that even mean?
Click to expand...



Yea, what does it mean?[/QUOTE]

That wasn't the quote I asked what it meant to.  What are you asking me?


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.
> 
> Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam.
> 
> You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were a soldier. We get it. People wanted to shoot you, so you shot them first. Congratulations. We're not talking about war here. We're talking about assholes with knives that want to cut your heart out and take your property. I carry a gun, thank you, so I still have my heart and my property. Thankfully once the gentlemen saw that they were.... let's say, out gunned, they both decided to abandon their plan and became quite compliant. No. I've never taken a life, but on 2 occasions, I was under a second from being forced to.
Click to expand...

People wanted to shoot us but we wanted to shoot them even more. That's how Marines win. The will to kill isn't all I learned from Uncle Sam. I learned about collateral casualties downrange in the battle space, and I learned how difficult it is to respond effectively when stumbling into a premeditated ambush.

In the Kalamazoo scenario, three retired ladies in their 60s and 70s were emerging from and backlit a Cracker Barrel Restaurant when they were gunned down from within a darkened automobile. You could arm those ladies with assault weapons, RPGs and M67 frags and it wouldn't have saved them. There is a fair chance, however, that if those good old girls managed to get off a few rounds, they might have taken a pedestrians or two from across the street with them.

Face it: gun nuts have heroic fantasies about using their weapons collections to save America but it is just childish. You want to save America from the bad guys? Enlist.


----------



## boilermaker55

As soon as  you post something of substance then you will get one
Until then, bye.




kaz said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a correlation. That was a correlation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it dawn on foolish idiot-morons like you that with all the guns we carry in this country and the murder rate we have, unlike other industrialized nations; we have to many fucking guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it down on foolish idiot-morons like you that the problem isn't the number of guns in honest citizens hands, it's the ones in criminals's hands and all your laws do is ensure the criminals meet less resistance when they commit crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you say.  If you ever want to make a coherent point you know where to find me
Click to expand...


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.
> 
> Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam.
> 
> You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were a soldier. We get it. People wanted to shoot you, so you shot them first. Congratulations. We're not talking about war here. We're talking about assholes with knives that want to cut your heart out and take your property. I carry a gun, thank you, so I still have my heart and my property. Thankfully once the gentlemen saw that they were.... let's say, out gunned, they both decided to abandon their plan and became quite compliant. No. I've never taken a life, but on 2 occasions, I was under a second from being forced to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People wanted to shoot us but we wanted to shoot them even more. That's how Marines win. The will to kill isn't all I learned from Uncle Sam. I learned about collateral casualties downrange in the battle space, and I learned how difficult it is to respond effectively when stumbling into a premeditated ambush.
> 
> In the Kalamazoo scenario, three retired ladies in their 60s and 70s were emerging from and backlit a Cracker Barrel Restaurant when they were gunned down from within a darkened automobile. You could arm those ladies with assault weapons, RPGs and M67 frags and it wouldn't have saved them. There is a fair chance, however, that if those good old girls managed to get off a few rounds, they might have taken a pedestrians or two from across the street with them.
> 
> Face it: gun nuts have heroic fantasies about using their weapons collections to save America but it is just childish. You want to save America from the bad guys? Enlist.
Click to expand...

I've saved myself from two bad guys. I have no fantasies I know I am unlikely to be able to react quickly enough in the Kalamazoo scenario, but I did in the Foley scenario. I am not childish, I am prepared. Molon labe.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> In the Kalamazoo scenario, three retired ladies in their 60s and 70s were emerging from and backlit a Cracker Barrel Restaurant when they were gunned down from within a darkened automobile. You could arm those ladies with assault weapons, RPGs and M67 frags and it wouldn't have saved them



Why would I do that?  You mentioned your standard.  If having a gun won't save you 100% of the time in every situation, then government is completely justified in banning you from ever having them.  All you proved is that you're a fucking stupid government dick sucking bitch



Fishlore said:


> Face it: gun nuts have heroic fantasies about using their weapons collections to save America but it is just childish. You want to save America from the bad guys? Enlist.



You mean like you?  that's your fantasy as a gun owner?  Dude, you are one... sick ... fuck ...  I hope you're writing these posts from an institution where you belong


----------



## kaz

boilermaker55 said:


> As soon as  you post something of substance then you will get one
> Until then, bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a correlation. That was a correlation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it dawn on foolish idiot-morons like you that with all the guns we carry in this country and the murder rate we have, unlike other industrialized nations; we have to many fucking guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when does it down on foolish idiot-morons like you that the problem isn't the number of guns in honest citizens hands, it's the ones in criminals's hands and all your laws do is ensure the criminals meet less resistance when they commit crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you say.  If you ever want to make a coherent point you know where to find me
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Um...OK?


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.
> 
> Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't win any points calling me "a fucking idiot" even among people who think that having insecure little fellows like Jason Dalton and you wandering around with their silly big boy guns on display are somehow making America safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption here is that had the father and son walking out the Cracker Barrel Restaurant in Kalamazoo yesterday been carrying the same sort of of semi-automatic pistols as the guy who killed them both in his random spree murder, they would have instantly dropped to the ground, drawn their weapons and returned devastating, heroic  fire that would have ended the crime spree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you have ever shot anyone deliberately. I have, and I was paid to do it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam.
> 
> You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were a soldier. We get it. People wanted to shoot you, so you shot them first. Congratulations. We're not talking about war here. We're talking about assholes with knives that want to cut your heart out and take your property. I carry a gun, thank you, so I still have my heart and my property. Thankfully once the gentlemen saw that they were.... let's say, out gunned, they both decided to abandon their plan and became quite compliant. No. I've never taken a life, but on 2 occasions, I was under a second from being forced to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People wanted to shoot us but we wanted to shoot them even more. That's how Marines win. The will to kill isn't all I learned from Uncle Sam. I learned about collateral casualties downrange in the battle space, and I learned how difficult it is to respond effectively when stumbling into a premeditated ambush.
> 
> In the Kalamazoo scenario, three retired ladies in their 60s and 70s were emerging from and backlit a Cracker Barrel Restaurant when they were gunned down from within a darkened automobile. You could arm those ladies with assault weapons, RPGs and M67 frags and it wouldn't have saved them. There is a fair chance, however, that if those good old girls managed to get off a few rounds, they might have taken a pedestrians or two from across the street with them.
> 
> Face it: gun nuts have heroic fantasies about using their weapons collections to save America but it is just childish. You want to save America from the bad guys? Enlist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've saved myself from two bad guys. I have no fantasies I know I am unlikely to be able to react quickly enough in the Kalamazoo scenario, but I did in the Foley scenario. I am not childish, I am prepared. Molon labe.
Click to expand...


Now that's the response of an actual, responsible gun owner.

Fishlore's response is the response of someone you know is lying about ever having touched a gun, and as certain as you are, even more you hope to God he hasn't


----------



## Little-Acorn

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Shooting at Vermont Gun Range Exposes Safety Loophole
> When Veronica Lewis walked into a Vermont Target Sports last week and asked to shoot a gun, she wasn’t required to pass a background check. If she had been, the check would have turned up the native New Yorker’s lengthy criminal rap sheet and a state order that explicitly prohibits her from possessing firearms. But she wasn’t, and after finishing a gun safety course, Lewis opened fire on instructor Darryl Montague, critically wounding him, before making off with the .22-caliber handgun.
> It’s not the first time a person otherwise barred from possessing a firearm has committed a crime at a shooting range.[/QUOTE]


Yet again the liberals find one crime that upsets the record of perfection they demand (from others, never from themselves), and use it as an excuse to impose massive government regulation, even in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Do these people EVER present a reasonable basis for their agenda?

No, they don't. Ever. Because there is no reasonable basis for their agenda.


----------



## Ernie S.

All you anti gun nuts can talk about are isolated incidents like Kalamazoo and this gun range thing, but you're afraid to speak out against the very significant loss of life caused by apathy to the thug culture. Here's a lady (a Navy vet) who is not afraid.


----------



## Arizona Willie

We only need ONE law regulating guns.

If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.

Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.


----------



## WildBillKelsoe

Arizona Willie said:


> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.



Automatic death penalty.


----------



## Ernie S.

I'm convinced that in a case like in the video above, the presiding judge should be issued a .357 magnum with which to carry out sentence immediately.


----------



## Slyhunter

Arizona Willie said:


> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.


life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.


----------



## Ernie S.

Slyhunter said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
Click to expand...

No one is (recently at least) advocating life for armed robbery


----------



## Slyhunter

Ernie S. said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is (recently at least) advocating life for armed robbery
Click to expand...

read the guy I quoted, he did.


----------



## ScienceRocks

When someone shoots someone without reason = *get their dick shot off.* People will be very careful with how they use their gun.


----------



## Ernie S.

Slyhunter said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is (recently at least) advocating life for armed robbery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> read the guy I quoted, he did.
Click to expand...

So I see. Sorry about that. I have Willy on ignore.


----------



## MaryL

Well, when my kids hurts another with a toy, and fights over it, I take the toy away. Simple enough. The Constitution guarantees the right to bare toys. I mean arms. Wow, if it were just that simple.


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo


----------



## Ernie S.

MaryL said:


> Well, when my kids hurts another with a toy, and fights over it, I take the toy away. Simple enough. The Constitution guarantees the right to bare toys. I mean arms. Wow, if it were just that simple.


OK you take the toy from the child that used it to hurt someone, but do you take similar toys from the kids on the next street over?


----------



## MaryL

Ernie S. said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when my kids hurts another with a toy, and fights over it, I take the toy away. Simple enough. The Constitution guarantees the right to bare toys. I mean arms. Wow, if it were just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> OK you take the toy from the child that used it to hurt someone, but do you take similar toys from the kids on the next street over?
Click to expand...

Good parenting might answer that...


----------



## Rustic

MaryL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when my kids hurts another with a toy, and fights over it, I take the toy away. Simple enough. The Constitution guarantees the right to bare toys. I mean arms. Wow, if it were just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> OK you take the toy from the child that used it to hurt someone, but do you take similar toys from the kids on the next street over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good parenting might answer that...
Click to expand...

...Buy kids firearms and teach them to shoot and hit what they are aiming at as early as possible.


----------



## Arizona Willie

Ernie S. said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is (recently at least) advocating life for armed robbery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> read the guy I quoted, he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I see. Sorry about that. I have Willy on ignore.
Click to expand...

========
Back atcha asshole.


----------



## HelenaHandbag




----------



## TemplarKormac

Dear kaz

I must congratulate you. 637 pages and nearly 6,400 replies. This thread qualifies as immortal.


----------



## MaryL

Guns are the problem, Only an moron  would think they are the solution. More guns or maintaining the status quo, same thing. This isn't working, and hasn't for a long long time.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

Circular reasoning is circular.


----------



## Ernie S.

MaryL said:


> Guns are the problem, Only an moron  would think they are the solution. More guns or maintaining the status quo, same thing. This isn't working, and hasn't for a long long time.


I own, let's just say, more than a dozen guns. I've never killed anyone.
Statistically, most people who commit murder with a fire arm own only one gun. Logically guns ARE the problem. Better stated, LACK of guns is the problem. Everyone should own at least 10. My argument is supported by logic. yours isn't. See how that works?
Only a moron thinks that a piece of steel and wood is the problem. The problem is thugs that have no respect for the law.

Want to hear my proposal for cutting the number of gun deaths by 50% in one year?


----------



## kaz

Little-Acorn said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shooting at Vermont Gun Range Exposes Safety Loophole
> When Veronica Lewis walked into a Vermont Target Sports last week and asked to shoot a gun, she wasn’t required to pass a background check. If she had been, the check would have turned up the native New Yorker’s lengthy criminal rap sheet and a state order that explicitly prohibits her from possessing firearms. But she wasn’t, and after finishing a gun safety course, Lewis opened fire on instructor Darryl Montague, critically wounding him, before making off with the .22-caliber handgun.
> It’s not the first time a person otherwise barred from possessing a firearm has committed a crime at a shooting range.[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again the liberals find one crime that upsets the record of perfection they demand (from others, never from themselves), and use it as an excuse to impose massive government regulation, even in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Do these people EVER present a reasonable basis for their agenda?
> 
> No, they don't. Ever. Because there is no reasonable basis for their agenda.
Click to expand...


Yes, the liberal standard.  They demand perfection from others.  In their own case they don't even need to do more good than harm or even any good, they just need to try.  Well, we have to do something, so let's do it our way regardless of the results, at least we're trying


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.



You know it's your liberal brethren who oppose that, right?


----------



## kaz

Rustic said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when my kids hurts another with a toy, and fights over it, I take the toy away. Simple enough. The Constitution guarantees the right to bare toys. I mean arms. Wow, if it were just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> OK you take the toy from the child that used it to hurt someone, but do you take similar toys from the kids on the next street over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good parenting might answer that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...Buy kids firearms and teach them to shoot and hit what they are aiming at as early as possible.
Click to expand...


Yep, being from Michigan that's what we do.  You also teach to respect guns and that they are dangerous and deadly when not used properly at an early age.  That is how you spread gun safety.


----------



## kaz

MaryL said:


> Well, when my kids hurts another with a toy, and fights over it, I take the toy away. Simple enough. The Constitution guarantees the right to bare toys. I mean arms. Wow, if it were just that simple.



Virtually all guns are used for hunting, target practice, defense, collecting and so on.  Most of them that kill someone are suicides.  Suicide rates in the UK are about like the US, they just kill themselves other ways.  and of the murders, most of those are committed in blue cities were guns are illegal.

And practically, there are 300 million of them.  To deny or restrict people's rights only affect those of us who follow the law.  You leave us even more vulnerable to those who don't.  Murder is illegal.  The idea a criminal is going to commit a murder but follow a gun law is, you know, ridiculous.

Let's outlaw marbles, do you know how many kids they kill?  And chain saws, you know what they can do to a person?  Life has risk.  Deal with it.  Not dealing with it doesn't take away the risk..


----------



## kaz

Matthew said:


> When someone shoots someone without reason = *get their dick shot off.* People will be very careful with how they use their gun.



Get that past your liberal brethren


----------



## kaz

Slyhunter said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
Click to expand...


So people would use a gun in a crime but kill everyone they can find so they can't Identify them?  I hope that was tongue in cheek...


----------



## Slyhunter

kaz said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people would use a gun in a crime but kill everyone they can find so they can't Identify them?  I hope that was tongue in cheek...
Click to expand...

If they get maximum sentence for simply having a gun, nothing will stop them from using the gun to silence witnesses. If armed robbery gets you life who gives a fuck if you commit murder while you are at it. 

6 years have a gun during a criminal act, life/death if fire a gun during that same act would be more appropriate.


----------



## Arizona Willie

Slyhunter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only need ONE law regulating guns.
> 
> If you commit a crime while in possession of a firearm it is an automatic LIFE SENTENCE.
> No appeal ... no parole ... no time off for good behavior.
> 
> Soon all the idiot criminals would be locked up and the population would be much safer.
> 
> 
> 
> life time in prison for armed robbery means they have no reason not to kill the victim. Get rid of a witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people would use a gun in a crime but kill everyone they can find so they can't Identify them?  I hope that was tongue in cheek...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they get maximum sentence for simply having a gun, nothing will stop them from using the gun to silence witnesses. If armed robbery gets you life who gives a fuck if you commit murder while you are at it.
> 
> 6 years have a gun during a criminal act, life/death if fire a gun during that same act would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

========
I agree that is probably better.

I could go for that.


----------



## Fishlore

I've saved myself from two bad guys. I have no fantasies I know I am unlikely to be able to react quickly enough in the Kalamazoo scenario, but I did in the Foley scenario. I am not childish, I am prepared. Molon labe.[/QUOTE]
Well, that makes a lot of sense and I congratulate you on your successful self-defense. If we could somehow ensure that semi-automatic weapons were only in hands like yours, this wild debate would be moot. The problem is that guns are fungible and don't give a damn who pulls their triggers. 

Now, I realize that guys like you keep gun safes, use trigger locks etc. and are very rarely, if ever, involved in a legal gun turning into an illegal gun. It is also true that the big majority of guns used in crimes have been traced back to a very small percentage of licensed gun dealers.

But, nonetheless, we have some 300,000,000 guns floating around in this country with effective control resting largely on responsible gun owners like you. Alas, you guys don't control all or even most of those 300,000,000 guns and, as we see every week, it takes only one whacko or one criminal with one gun to create horrible carnage of innocent people.

I admit I don't see an easy answer to the gun problem and I agree that the responsible gun owners is the wrong place to start. Although the number of guns keep increasing, the number of families without any gun has been growing steadily for forty years. This means that we are heading to a wild eyed, one-size-fits-all gun control program that will do little to effect the real problem. The responsible gun owners do not help their cause by stonewalling the issue.

When I first joined the NRA as a teen ager, the association was big on responsibility and necessary restriction. Gun ownership was a right, but it was a right that required demonstrated capability. Since then, the NRA has turned into a highly politicized lobby of the firearms industry, worse than useless. If the responsible gun owners don't take the wheel and get something accomplished, the hysterical Moms and Dads who have never fired a weapong will take over.


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> 
> 
> Well, amigo, you need to read a bit more carefully. I didn't say I was a gun *owner*, (although I am) I said I had shot somewone deliberately and had been paid for it. In fact, I shot several people and had quite a few more probables. Judging from your infantile world view, this all probably happened  before you were born. I'll give you another clue and see if you can figure out what I am speaking about. The guy who paid me to shoot is named Uncle Sam.
> 
> Think about it because shooting someone under any circumstances is an experience one does not soon forget. You feel unrestrained to mouth off about the wonder-working powers of people trap
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say things like this:
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.  No one thinks that except apparently you.  You're being a pompous ass and characterizing our position so you can look down your snooty nose at people.  If you want to have a real discussion, cut the crap
> 
> Of course, every liberal in gun discussions is a gun owner.  And you just proved with your asinine characterization of gun owners that you're a L-I-A-R.  Any actual gun owner would know that.
> 
> And like you,no, I have never shot anyone.  And unlike you I'm very happy about that.  I've never shot a gun in anger at all and hope not to.  But I don't have sick Rambo fantasies like you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read a bit more closely and think a bit harder. I didn't say I was a gun owner (although I am) I said I had shot someone deliberately and been paid for it. I guess from your inability to catch the reference that you are too young to grasp my what I am alluding to. Here's a hint: the guy who paid me is called Uncle Sam.
> 
> You have never shot anyone by your own admission, yet you feel qualified to discuss the beneficial effect of arming everyone at the mall in order to prevent crime. Shooting someone not by accident is something you seldom forget. Being in a group of people all of whom are shooting at people in another group also sticks in the memory. The idea of untrained gun virgins like you, not to mention your little sister and her grandmother, strapping on semi-automatic handguns in order to make their trip to Arby's safer is the stupidest, funniest post on this thread. Congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were a soldier. We get it. People wanted to shoot you, so you shot them first. Congratulations. We're not talking about war here. We're talking about assholes with knives that want to cut your heart out and take your property. I carry a gun, thank you, so I still have my heart and my property. Thankfully once the gentlemen saw that they were.... let's say, out gunned, they both decided to abandon their plan and became quite compliant. No. I've never taken a life, but on 2 occasions, I was under a second from being forced to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People wanted to shoot us but we wanted to shoot them even more. That's how Marines win. The will to kill isn't all I learned from Uncle Sam. I learned about collateral casualties downrange in the battle space, and I learned how difficult it is to respond effectively when stumbling into a premeditated ambush.
> 
> In the Kalamazoo scenario, three retired ladies in their 60s and 70s were emerging from and backlit a Cracker Barrel Restaurant when they were gunned down from within a darkened automobile. You could arm those ladies with assault weapons, RPGs and M67 frags and it wouldn't have saved them. There is a fair chance, however, that if those good old girls managed to get off a few rounds, they might have taken a pedestrians or two from across the street with them.
> 
> Face it: gun nuts have heroic fantasies about using their weapons collections to save America but it is just childish. You want to save America from the bad guys? Enlist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've saved myself from two bad guys. I have no fantasies I know I am unlikely to be able to react quickly enough in the Kalamazoo scenario, but I did in the Foley scenario. I am not childish, I am prepared. Molon labe.
> 
> Now that's the response of an actual, responsible gun owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore's response is the response of someone you know is lying about ever having touched a gun, and as certain as you are, even more you hope to God he hasn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm curious to know by what line of reasoning your reached your conclusion about my history of gun ownership. Do you really think you can determine gun ownership from a few words posted on a bbs site?
> 
> If I agree to PM you my real identity and a copy of my pistol permit will you agree to do the same and swear to never post on usmessageboard.com again?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Since then, the NRA has turned into a highly politicized lobby of the firearms industry



Again, you belie your claims by parroting the bigoted caricatures of the leftist media.  Anyone who actually knows the NRA knows they are all about gun safety, that hasn't changed at all.  The DC lobbying effort isn't what you see when you deal with the local NRA groups


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore's response is the response of someone you know is lying about ever having touched a gun, and as certain as you are, even more you hope to God he hasn't
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to know by what line of reasoning your reached your conclusion about my history of gun ownership. Do you really think you can determine gun ownership from a few words posted on a bbs site?
> 
> If I agree to PM you my real identity and a copy of my pistol permit will you agree to do the same and swear to never post on usmessageboard.com again?
Click to expand...


My claim you are lying is based on your claim that you are a gun owner, so you know that gun owner fantasies are getting in a shooting and rolling on the ground like Rambo.  I've been around gun owners all my life, family, friends, community, myself, and I have never known anyone like that.  We take guns seriously.  No paper you can fabricate can ever convince me that your ridiculous caricature of gun owners is true.  It isn't.  And anyone serious about guns would know that.

Also, I only make bets for fun with people I respect.  The endless stream of liberals who claim like you they are gun owners and that's how they know we are a bunch of cartoon Yosemite Sams I do not respect.  You've never touched a gun.

BTW, I'm not military, but I've known lots of people who were, including my brother and cousin in Gulf War I.  They didn't kill anyone, but other people I knew did and they while talking about it are never flip about it like you are saying you've killed people for money.

*...Mod Edit...*​


----------



## Wry Catcher

Well, another few bite the dust, yawn ...

County sheriff: Multiple deaths, injuries Kansas attacks

To bad a few dozen by-standers didn't have AR 15's, it could have really been interesting.  As it stands, it's just a run-of-the-mill standard murder of a bunch of people who went to work and will never go home.  As I wrote, yawn.

BTW, I wonder if the shooter was a criminal before he went hunting today?


----------



## Rustic

Fishlore said:


> I've saved myself from two bad guys. I have no fantasies I know I am unlikely to be able to react quickly enough in the Kalamazoo scenario, but I did in the Foley scenario. I am not childish, I am prepared. Molon labe.


Well, that makes a lot of sense and I congratulate you on your successful self-defense. If we could somehow ensure that semi-automatic weapons were only in hands like yours, this wild debate would be moot. The problem is that guns are fungible and don't give a damn who pulls their triggers.

Now, I realize that guys like you keep gun safes, use trigger locks etc. and are very rarely, if ever, involved in a legal gun turning into an illegal gun. It is also true that the big majority of guns used in crimes have been traced back to a very small percentage of licensed gun dealers.

But, nonetheless, we have some 300,000,000 guns floating around in this country with effective control resting largely on responsible gun owners like you. Alas, you guys don't control all or even most of those 300,000,000 guns and, as we see every week, it takes only one whacko or one criminal with one gun to create horrible carnage of innocent people.

I admit I don't see an easy answer to the gun problem and I agree that the responsible gun owners is the wrong place to start. Although the number of guns keep increasing, the number of families without any gun has been growing steadily for forty years. This means that we are heading to a wild eyed, one-size-fits-all gun control program that will do little to effect the real problem. The responsible gun owners do not help their cause by stonewalling the issue.

When I first joined the NRA as a teen ager, the association was big on responsibility and necessary restriction. Gun ownership was a right, but it was a right that required demonstrated capability. Since then, the NRA has turned into a highly politicized lobby of the firearms industry, worse than useless. If the responsible gun owners don't take the wheel and get something accomplished, the hysterical Moms and Dads who have never fired a weapong will take over.[/QUOTE]


Quit making shit up...


----------



## kaz

auditor0007

So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:

1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.

So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?


1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.

2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.

3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.

What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!


----------



## auditor0007

kaz said:


> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?



I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.


----------



## westwall

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...












Japan has basically the same laws, their harbors are heavily patrolled and even with all of that the Yakuza has more guns than members.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...


So 1 and 2 are going to scare criminals into not getting a gun when they are planning to commit murder?  That's ridiculous

As for 3, so since you people demand we keep the borders open, why are they going to go through legal entry anyway?


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
Click to expand...


You can argue a general correlation, but you can't conclude cause and effect from that.  Again, Europle had lower murder rates as they were more homogonous and those murder rates are skyrocketing as they increase immigration of different cultures.  We are very diverse, how does that observation help us?  Want to start exporting people so we're more midwestern white again?

What do we get from that?  What we do know is in Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, the Washington Navy yard, Aurora and other mass shootings, the commonality was no one was shooting back and that helped the shooter maximize the carnage.  That's what gun laws accomplish


----------



## TooTall

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...


The next thing you will have to do is have a confiscatory program to take away all of the knives people have.  Then you can start on baseball bats.  LMAO


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 1 and 2 are going to scare criminals into not getting a gun when they are planning to commit murder?  That's ridiculous
> 
> As for 3, so since you people demand we keep the borders open, why are they going to go through legal entry anyway?
Click to expand...

The law may not scare criminals, it's intent is to dry up the supply. Of all the tragedies due to guns, premeditated murder is perhaps the least likely to be significantly reduced by eliminating guns. There are lots of ways to kill with time and planning. Impulsive crimes, accidental shootings and suicides will be more effectively reduced. Gang and criminal killings can continue but multiple deaths and collateral injuries will go way down.

I don't know who "you people" you are talking about gun control and border control are not necessarily linked. 

There are many countries in which guns were once widely prevalent, ususally as the result of war,  in which civiliang guns have been successfully rounded up. It not only can be done, it has been done from China to Greece.


----------



## The Rabbi

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

No cars would equal a zero auto fatality rate too.  Just saying.


----------



## The Rabbi

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...

So are all persons entering the US subject to search for cocaine? Is there any place here you cannot buy cocaine?
There is no way to get rid of guns without turning the US into a polcie state, which is what liberals want.


----------



## auditor0007

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No cars would equal a zero auto fatality rate too.  Just saying.
Click to expand...


 There is a much better argument for the need of cars in our lives than there is for guns. Just saying.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 1 and 2 are going to scare criminals into not getting a gun when they are planning to commit murder?  That's ridiculous
> 
> As for 3, so since you people demand we keep the borders open, why are they going to go through legal entry anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law may not scare criminals, it's intent is to dry up the supply. Of all the tragedies due to guns, premeditated murder is perhaps the least likely to be significantly reduced by eliminating guns. There are lots of ways to kill with time and planning. Impulsive crimes, accidental shootings and suicides will be more effectively reduced. Gang and criminal killings can continue but multiple deaths and collateral injuries will go way down.
> 
> I don't know who "you people" you are talking about gun control and border control are not necessarily linked.
> 
> There are many countries in which guns were once widely prevalent, ususally as the result of war,  in which civiliang guns have been successfully rounded up. It not only can be done, it has been done from China to Greece.
Click to expand...


So you're banking on:

We can "dry up" or keep away the 310 million guns from criminals

They can't import them even though drugs are rampant

And they can't think of any other way to kill people

And if any of those fail, we're dead. Oh well.  OK, I'm in, that sounds like a reasonable plan ...


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No cars would equal a zero auto fatality rate too.  Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a much better argument for the need of cars in our lives than there is for guns. Just saying.
Click to expand...


Yes, a car can take you places.  A gun can protect you from someone who wants to kill you.  No need for that.  How'd that plan work out for you in Paris?  Or Aurora, Sandy Hook, the Washington Navy Yard, Columbine, the community college in Oregon, San Bernardino, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook ...


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are all persons entering the US subject to search for cocaine? Is there any place here you cannot buy cocaine?
> There is no way to get rid of guns without turning the US into a polcie state, which is what liberals want.
Click to expand...


What do you mean?  You can't buy cocaine, it's illegal.  Didn't you know that? ...


----------



## The Rabbi

auditor0007 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No cars would equal a zero auto fatality rate too.  Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a much better argument for the need of cars in our lives than there is for guns. Just saying.
Click to expand...

"Need" has little to do with it. Government could ban cars legally.  They could not do so with guns.


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are all persons entering the US subject to search for cocaine? Is there any place here you cannot buy cocaine?
> There is no way to get rid of guns without turning the US into a polcie state, which is what liberals want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You can't buy cocaine, it's illegal.  Didn't you know that? ...
Click to expand...

But border checks and having it be illegal do not stop people from buying it.  Ergo the same could be said of guns. Only more so.  Once cocaine is used up it is gone.  Guns are good for over 100 years.


----------



## Fishlore

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are all persons entering the US subject to search for cocaine? Is there any place here you cannot buy cocaine?
> There is no way to get rid of guns without turning the US into a polcie state, which is what liberals want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You can't buy cocaine, it's illegal.  Didn't you know that? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But border checks and having it be illegal do not stop people from buying it.  Ergo the same could be said of guns. Only more so.  Once cocaine is used up it is gone.  Guns are good for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Think carefully. If possession is a crime, purchasing is _de facto_ evidence of that crime.  There is no reward for turning in a cocaine user. My plan would rapidly escalate the reward for finking on a gun nut into many thousands of dollars. Tips from ex-wives alone would reduce the number of guns in circulation by 25% in less than five years.


----------



## The Rabbi

Fishlore said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are all persons entering the US subject to search for cocaine? Is there any place here you cannot buy cocaine?
> There is no way to get rid of guns without turning the US into a polcie state, which is what liberals want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You can't buy cocaine, it's illegal.  Didn't you know that? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But border checks and having it be illegal do not stop people from buying it.  Ergo the same could be said of guns. Only more so.  Once cocaine is used up it is gone.  Guns are good for over 100 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think carefully. If possession is a crime, purchasing is _de facto_ evidence of that crime.  There is no reward for turning in a cocaine user. My plan would rapidly escalate the reward for finking on a gun nut into many thousands of dollars. Tips from ex-wives alone would reduce the number of guns in circulation by 25% in less than five years.
Click to expand...

Snitches get stitches.


----------



## MikeK

auditor0007 said:


> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.


The same may be said for restricting the use of motor vehicles to verifiable necessity.  And by necessity I mean if you can't get somewhere via public transportation. 

Just think what a great country we could have by implementing your idea and mine.  And I'm sure we could think of a few more really good ways to solve some problems.  The essence of _Nineteen Eighty Four._


----------



## 2aguy

auditor0007 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
Click to expand...



That isn't true...countries with extreme gun control, but violent cultures have higher gun murder rates than we do.......Mexico is right across the border and the u.s. Counties on the border with Mexico have more legal guns than the Mexican states on the border do.....and the gun murder rate in those Mexican states is way higher than in those Texas counties.......

BRitain confiscated guns and has extreme gun control....right after they confiscated their guns the gun crime rate spiked......and then went right back to where it was before the confiscation...there was no decrease in gun crime...it stayed the same......

Gun crime is not caused by normal,people owning guns......more Americans bought and now carry guns than ever before....and our gun murder rate went down...how do you explain that...?


A Flemish Institute of Peace study I posted last week stated there is no connection between gun ownership rates and gun homicide and gun suicide rates........how do you explain that?


Our gun suicide rate has gone down...not up....as more people own and carry guns...how do you explain that?


----------



## 2aguy

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 1 and 2 are going to scare criminals into not getting a gun when they are planning to commit murder?  That's ridiculous
> 
> As for 3, so since you people demand we keep the borders open, why are they going to go through legal entry anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law may not scare criminals, it's intent is to dry up the supply. Of all the tragedies due to guns, premeditated murder is perhaps the least likely to be significantly reduced by eliminating guns. There are lots of ways to kill with time and planning. Impulsive crimes, accidental shootings and suicides will be more effectively reduced. Gang and criminal killings can continue but multiple deaths and collateral injuries will go way down.
> 
> I don't know who "you people" you are talking about gun control and border control are not necessarily linked.
> 
> There are many countries in which guns were once widely prevalent, ususally as the result of war,  in which civiliang guns have been successfully rounded up. It not only can be done, it has been done from China to Greece.
Click to expand...


Wrong..the criminals in those countries still get guns.....fully automatic weapons are now being used against British police...their gun crime went up 4% last year...how do you explain that....it is an island nation......

Ditto a Australia........their gun l gels have return d to the level they were at before the confiscation....and they have had many near mass shootings........the only thing that kept the shooters from being mass shooters....they decided not to shoot more people....

Nothing you claim is accurate.....


----------



## Centinel

RDD_1210 said:


> A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.
> 
> We can certainly start there.


I don't think you'll get the necessary number of states to sign off on an amendment allowing that. Currently none of congress' enumerated powers would permit such a law.


----------



## asaratis

As with many other issues discussed here on USMB, the posters that logically say that if we had no guns there would be no gun deaths.  What they illogically ignore is that making it unlawful to own or carry a gun does nothing more than make easy targets for those that do not intend to abide by any laws.

This discussion can continue until the cows come home, but it will not change the fact that GUN LAWS MAKE IT DANGEROUS TO BE LAW ABIDING.


----------



## NYcarbineer

It will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals if you make it a very serious crime to PUT a gun in the hands of a criminal.


----------



## Centinel

NYcarbineer said:


> It will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals if you make it a very serious crime to PUT a gun in the hands of a criminal.


How is someone going to smuggle a gun into a prison so that he can put a gun into the hands of a criminal?


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are all persons entering the US subject to search for cocaine? Is there any place here you cannot buy cocaine?
> There is no way to get rid of guns without turning the US into a polcie state, which is what liberals want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You can't buy cocaine, it's illegal.  Didn't you know that? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But border checks and having it be illegal do not stop people from buying it.  Ergo the same could be said of guns. Only more so.  Once cocaine is used up it is gone.  Guns are good for over 100 years.
Click to expand...


you know I was being factious, right?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Kondor3

Around Chicago, we merely need to keep guns from Inner City Ghetto Trash.


----------



## auditor0007

2aguy said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't true...countries with extreme gun control, but violent cultures have higher gun murder rates than we do.......Mexico is right across the border and the u.s. Counties on the border with Mexico have more legal guns than the Mexican states on the border do.....and the gun murder rate in those Mexican states is way higher than in those Texas counties.......
> 
> BRitain confiscated guns and has extreme gun control....right after they confiscated their guns the gun crime rate spiked......and then went right back to where it was before the confiscation...there was no decrease in gun crime...it stayed the same......
> 
> Gun crime is not caused by normal,people owning guns......more Americans bought and now carry guns than ever before....and our gun murder rate went down...how do you explain that...?
> 
> 
> A Flemish Institute of Peace study I posted last week stated there is no connection between gun ownership rates and gun homicide and gun suicide rates........how do you explain that?
> 
> 
> Our gun suicide rate has gone down...not up....as more people own and carry guns...how do you explain that?
Click to expand...


Mexico is in the middle of a very long war between the government and the drug cartels.  Mexico's murder rate is heavily skewed because of this.


----------



## P@triot

auditor0007 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't true...countries with extreme gun control, but violent cultures have higher gun murder rates than we do.......Mexico is right across the border and the u.s. Counties on the border with Mexico have more legal guns than the Mexican states on the border do.....and the gun murder rate in those Mexican states is way higher than in those Texas counties.......
> 
> BRitain confiscated guns and has extreme gun control....right after they confiscated their guns the gun crime rate spiked......and then went right back to where it was before the confiscation...there was no decrease in gun crime...it stayed the same......
> 
> Gun crime is not caused by normal,people owning guns......more Americans bought and now carry guns than ever before....and our gun murder rate went down...how do you explain that...?
> 
> 
> A Flemish Institute of Peace study I posted last week stated there is no connection between gun ownership rates and gun homicide and gun suicide rates........how do you explain that?
> 
> 
> Our gun suicide rate has gone down...not up....as more people own and carry guns...how do you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in the middle of a very long war between the government and the drug cartels.  Mexico's murder rate is heavily skewed because of this.
Click to expand...

In other words - you don't count it when criminals use guns for crimes in other nations where guns are outlawed because it proves that your position on guns is wrong...


----------



## P@triot




----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...

Have you repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Centinel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals if you make it a very serious crime to PUT a gun in the hands of a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> How is someone going to smuggle a gun into a prison so that he can put a gun into the hands of a criminal?
Click to expand...


A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.


----------



## Centinel

NYcarbineer said:


> A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.



Oh, you mean someone who committed a crime and then paid his debt to society and has been released from the penitentiary? Why would we need to keep a gun out of his hands?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Centinel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean someone who committed a crime and then paid his debt to society and has been released from the penitentiary? Why would we need to keep a gun out of his hands?
Click to expand...


What if not owning a gun in the future is PART of his debt to society?


----------



## billyerock1991

kaz said:


> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?


no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,


----------



## Centinel

NYcarbineer said:


> What if not owning a gun in the future is PART of his debt to society?



Then, having stripped him of his ability to defend himself, society should provide him with round-the-clock armed security.


----------



## Arizona Willie

NYcarbineer said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals if you make it a very serious crime to PUT a gun in the hands of a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> How is someone going to smuggle a gun into a prison so that he can put a gun into the hands of a criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.
Click to expand...

========
How can you blame the person that sells / gives a person a gun if they don't know the person is a felon / psycopath?

The only TRUE answer to guns in crime is to make it a life sentence to use / possess a firearm during the commission of a crime.

Anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime goes to prison for life... no appeal ... no parole ... no exception.

And at the same time release all the people in prison for simple possession of pot to make room for the people who will get life sentences.

Pretty soon all the crazies will be behind bars where they belong and you STILL have your gun under your pillow.


----------



## kaz

asaratis said:


> As with many other issues discussed here on USMB, the posters that logically say that if we had no guns there would be no gun deaths.  What they illogically ignore is that making it unlawful to own or carry a gun does nothing more than make easy targets for those that do not intend to abide by any laws.
> 
> This discussion can continue until the cows come home, but it will not change the fact that GUN LAWS MAKE IT DANGEROUS TO BE LAW ABIDING.



Wait a minute.  Are you saying a criminal would break the law and buy an illegal gun?  I don't think that's true, is it?  Isn't it part of the criminal code to follow laws?

LOL, liberals really are morons, aren't they?


----------



## kaz

auditor0007 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument to take everyone's guns away, because I understand it will never happen.  I'm just stating a fact that no guns equals a much lower homicide rate than we currently have, and that cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't true...countries with extreme gun control, but violent cultures have higher gun murder rates than we do.......Mexico is right across the border and the u.s. Counties on the border with Mexico have more legal guns than the Mexican states on the border do.....and the gun murder rate in those Mexican states is way higher than in those Texas counties.......
> 
> BRitain confiscated guns and has extreme gun control....right after they confiscated their guns the gun crime rate spiked......and then went right back to where it was before the confiscation...there was no decrease in gun crime...it stayed the same......
> 
> Gun crime is not caused by normal,people owning guns......more Americans bought and now carry guns than ever before....and our gun murder rate went down...how do you explain that...?
> 
> 
> A Flemish Institute of Peace study I posted last week stated there is no connection between gun ownership rates and gun homicide and gun suicide rates........how do you explain that?
> 
> 
> Our gun suicide rate has gone down...not up....as more people own and carry guns...how do you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is in the middle of a very long war between the government and the drug cartels.  Mexico's murder rate is heavily skewed because of this.
Click to expand...


If they just realized that passing laws keeps guns from criminals, huh?

It's not like they can carry those guns across the borders you LWNJs keep open, can they?  Hmm or maybe they can ...


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?
Click to expand...

Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment has only recently swung from the "necessary militia" point of view to a precedent shattering interpretation granting individuals the right to keep guns at home for self defense. The ruling, like the Citizens United ruling is so outside the judicial precedent mainstream that it is quite likely to be overturned. This sort of reversal happens more than one might imagine. Think _Dredd Scott_ or _Plessy v. Ferguson ._


----------



## kaz

Rottweiler said:


> View attachment 72939



Nailed it!


----------



## The Rabbi

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment has only recently swung from the "necessary militia" point of view to a precedent shattering interpretation granting individuals the right to keep guns at home for self defense. The ruling, like the Citizens United ruling is so outside the judicial precedent mainstream that it is quite likely to be overturned. This sort of reversal happens more than one might imagine. Think _Dredd Scott_ or _Plessy v. Ferguson ._
Click to expand...

Actually not.  US v. Miller also held the 2A was an indiviidual right.


----------



## kaz

billyerock1991 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
Click to expand...


Wrong, lots of liberals say that.  But that's not the point actually I keep making.  I keep pointing out that if you don't have a gun when you need it because it's not allowed, the gun doesn't help you at home in your safe.  Why do shooters keep going to gun free zones?  I mean duh


----------



## 2aguy

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment has only recently swung from the "necessary militia" point of view to a precedent shattering interpretation granting individuals the right to keep guns at home for self defense. The ruling, like the Citizens United ruling is so outside the judicial precedent mainstream that it is quite likely to be overturned. This sort of reversal happens more than one might imagine. Think _Dredd Scott_ or _Plessy v. Ferguson ._
Click to expand...



Yes....you left wing regressives hate the 1st Amendment only slightly less than you hate the 2nd Amendment........


----------



## 2aguy

billyerock1991 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
Click to expand...



Wrong on all counts....current federal background checks are easily bypassed by criminals who use people with clean records to buy their guns, or they steal them.   Your call for universal background checks will just as easily be bypassed....

What you don't realize or care about...it that the anti gun leadership knows this too.....they don't want universal background checks because they think it will stop criminals...they know it won't.....what it does....is make the step for universal gun registration the next step.  You can't have universal background checks without gun registration.

Also.....they have changed the word from universal background checks for all "sales" to all "transfers" which means if you loan a gun to your son.....you have to get him checked.....when he hands it back to you....he has to get you checked....

It also means that training and safety classes.......will need to be corporate classes......since they are using universal background check laws to force out smaller gun trainers......

More Responsible....you are nuts.

we have 357,000,000 million guns in private hands.......our gun murder rate is going down, not up....in 2014 there were 8,124 gun murders....90% of those doing the gun murder had multiple convictions and used the illegally possessed guns illegally.....

That means less than 8,124 guns were used illegally.....

That means...356,991,876 million guns in private hands were used responsibly.....

Gun accidents in 2013 when we had 320,000,000 guns in private hands...505.

Not one point you made is factual, reasonable or has any bearing on the reality of gun owners and guns in the United STates.......


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment has only recently swung from the "necessary militia" point of view to a precedent shattering interpretation granting individuals the right to keep guns at home for self defense. The ruling, like the Citizens United ruling is so outside the judicial precedent mainstream that it is quite likely to be overturned. This sort of reversal happens more than one might imagine. Think _Dredd Scott_ or _Plessy v. Ferguson ._
Click to expand...


It's likely to be overturned because Scalia died


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment has only recently swung from the "necessary militia" point of view to a precedent shattering interpretation granting individuals the right to keep guns at home for self defense. The ruling, like the Citizens United ruling is so outside the judicial precedent mainstream that it is quite likely to be overturned. This sort of reversal happens more than one might imagine. Think _Dredd Scott_ or _Plessy v. Ferguson ._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually not.  US v. Miller also held the 2A was an indiviidual right.
Click to expand...


Isn't it just bizzaro world that the court even has to entertain the question whether the bill of rights are individual rights?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts....current federal background checks are easily bypassed by criminals who use people with clean records to buy their guns, or they steal them.   Your call for universal background checks will just as easily be bypassed....
> 
> What you don't realize or care about...it that the anti gun leadership knows this too.....they don't want universal background checks because they think it will stop criminals...they know it won't.....what it does....is make the step for universal gun registration the next step.  You can't have universal background checks without gun registration.
> 
> Also.....they have changed the word from universal background checks for all "sales" to all "transfers" which means if you loan a gun to your son.....you have to get him checked.....when he hands it back to you....he has to get you checked....
> 
> It also means that training and safety classes.......will need to be corporate classes......since they are using universal background check laws to force out smaller gun trainers......
> 
> More Responsible....you are nuts.
> 
> we have 357,000,000 million guns in private hands.......our gun murder rate is going down, not up....in 2014 there were 8,124 gun murders....90% of those doing the gun murder had multiple convictions and used the illegally possessed guns illegally.....
> 
> That means less than 8,124 guns were used illegally.....
> 
> That means...356,991,876 million guns in private hands were used responsibly.....
> 
> Gun accidents in 2013 when we had 320,000,000 guns in private hands...505.
> 
> Not one point you made is factual, reasonable or has any bearing on the reality of gun owners and guns in the United STates.......
Click to expand...


I would support background checks with two conditions:

1)  Government cannot record the fact that you had a background check to buy a gun

2)  They use background checks to arrest people who have had their rights removed through due process of law and try to buy a gun anyway.  So we put criminals where they belong, back in jail.

The problem is as you say they are now useless.  Criminals can go from shop to shop and face no consequences, so the price is only paid by honest citizens who have to clear another hurdle and have government record their activities


----------



## 2aguy

kaz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts....current federal background checks are easily bypassed by criminals who use people with clean records to buy their guns, or they steal them.   Your call for universal background checks will just as easily be bypassed....
> 
> What you don't realize or care about...it that the anti gun leadership knows this too.....they don't want universal background checks because they think it will stop criminals...they know it won't.....what it does....is make the step for universal gun registration the next step.  You can't have universal background checks without gun registration.
> 
> Also.....they have changed the word from universal background checks for all "sales" to all "transfers" which means if you loan a gun to your son.....you have to get him checked.....when he hands it back to you....he has to get you checked....
> 
> It also means that training and safety classes.......will need to be corporate classes......since they are using universal background check laws to force out smaller gun trainers......
> 
> More Responsible....you are nuts.
> 
> we have 357,000,000 million guns in private hands.......our gun murder rate is going down, not up....in 2014 there were 8,124 gun murders....90% of those doing the gun murder had multiple convictions and used the illegally possessed guns illegally.....
> 
> That means less than 8,124 guns were used illegally.....
> 
> That means...356,991,876 million guns in private hands were used responsibly.....
> 
> Gun accidents in 2013 when we had 320,000,000 guns in private hands...505.
> 
> Not one point you made is factual, reasonable or has any bearing on the reality of gun owners and guns in the United STates.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would support background checks with two conditions:
> 
> 1)  Government cannot record the fact that you had a background check to buy a gun
> 
> 2)  They use background checks to arrest people who have had their rights removed through due process of law and try to buy a gun anyway.  So we put criminals where they belong, back in jail.
> 
> The problem is as you say they are now useless.  Criminals can go from shop to shop and face no consequences, so the price is only paid by honest citizens who have to clear another hurdle and have government record their activities
Click to expand...



And sadly, the anti gun nutters will not act in good faith.  The truth is they know what you say is true......but all they want is confiscation and banning of guns.....to do that they have to break the process up....they know if they say they are going to ban guns, but first they will register guns to do it....guns will dissapear....

First, they need to register guns...and then years later they can ban them...just like Germany, Britain and Australia did.....

The only way to get registration of guns....universal background checks.....so they have to get that before they can push for universal gun registration....

So we have to fight each step....we know what they want....they can deny it all day long but their  actions tell us the truth....so not one more gun, bullet, piece of equipment or stupid law....we fight them for each one....


----------



## kaz

Centinel said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean someone who committed a crime and then paid his debt to society and has been released from the penitentiary? Why would we need to keep a gun out of his hands?
Click to expand...


Yes, they have been rehabilitated.  It's people who haven't gone to jail we need to be afraid of ...


----------



## The Rabbi

kaz said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean someone who committed a crime and then paid his debt to society and has been released from the penitentiary? Why would we need to keep a gun out of his hands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have been rehabilitated.  It's people who haven't gone to jail we need to be afraid of ...
Click to expand...

They have not been rehabilitated.  The rate of recidivism is about 65% within the first 5 years.  After 8 years clean I'd be happy to see full restoration of rights.


----------



## kaz

The Rabbi said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal in this context is a felon who can't legally own a gun who acquires a gun.  He's committed a crime.  We have to make sure it's a crime for the provider of the gun as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean someone who committed a crime and then paid his debt to society and has been released from the penitentiary? Why would we need to keep a gun out of his hands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have been rehabilitated.  It's people who haven't gone to jail we need to be afraid of ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have not been rehabilitated.  The rate of recidivism is about 65% within the first 5 years.  After 8 years clean I'd be happy to see full restoration of rights.
Click to expand...


You know that was sarcasm, right?


----------



## billyerock1991

2aguy said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts....current federal background checks are easily bypassed by criminals who use people with clean records to buy their guns, or they steal them.   Your call for universal background checks will just as easily be bypassed....
> 
> What you don't realize or care about...it that the anti gun leadership knows this too.....they don't want universal background checks because they think it will stop criminals...they know it won't.....what it does....is make the step for universal gun registration the next step.  You can't have universal background checks without gun registration.
> 
> Also.....they have changed the word from universal background checks for all "sales" to all "transfers" which means if you loan a gun to your son.....you have to get him checked.....when he hands it back to you....he has to get you checked....
> 
> It also means that training and safety classes.......will need to be corporate classes......since they are using universal background check laws to force out smaller gun trainers......
> 
> More Responsible....you are nuts.
> 
> we have 357,000,000 million guns in private hands.......our gun murder rate is going down, not up....in 2014 there were 8,124 gun murders....90% of those doing the gun murder had multiple convictions and used the illegally possessed guns illegally.....
> 
> That means less than 8,124 guns were used illegally.....
> 
> That means...356,991,876 million guns in private hands were used responsibly.....
> 
> Gun accidents in 2013 when we had 320,000,000 guns in private hands...505.
> 
> Not one point you made is factual, reasonable or has any bearing on the reality of gun owners and guns in the United STates.......
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah you are so full of it it leaks out your ears ...


----------



## asaratis

NYcarbineer said:


> It will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals if you make it a very serious crime to PUT a gun in the hands of a criminal.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...


Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## Fishlore

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
Click to expand...

Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.


----------



## Rustic

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
Click to expand...

But this is America, not Japan. Millions upon millions have no desire to be anything like Japan…


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
Click to expand...


Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.

To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.

And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.



The existing laws on drugs and guns don't work either


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!



No, it wouldn't, it would be chaos.  The reason pot laws don't work is that if a group of college student age kids are smoking pot in a park in their own area, no one will call a cop and if they did the cop probably wouldn't do anything.  The people don't in any reasonable percent think it's a big deal.  We have 310 million guns in this country, the people overwhelmingly support keeping them legal.

If you got your laws forced through, the police trying to enforce that would meet incredible resistance. They either would have to go to police State tactics or fail and have a constant battle with it's own people.  It would end up being like prohibition and finally have to end to stop the madness.

The question to propose laws didn't say, propose how to keep guns from criminals, you may assume any laws would be supported by the people.  The challenge is to propose laws that would actually work.  So it's a fail, no way this would work.  It would be a bigger nightmare than prohibition was.

Now I would go with your plan if you add one caveat.  Do the plan for convicted felons and mental loons who through the due process of law have had their right to own a gun removed.  Your plan would put them and keep them in jail.  It would actually be a big help.  Though it wouldn't solve the problem, it's not sufficient.

Criminals buy illegal guns now.  The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns.  It's just a fact and you didn't solve it


----------



## 2aguy

billyerock1991 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts....current federal background checks are easily bypassed by criminals who use people with clean records to buy their guns, or they steal them.   Your call for universal background checks will just as easily be bypassed....
> 
> What you don't realize or care about...it that the anti gun leadership knows this too.....they don't want universal background checks because they think it will stop criminals...they know it won't.....what it does....is make the step for universal gun registration the next step.  You can't have universal background checks without gun registration.
> 
> Also.....they have changed the word from universal background checks for all "sales" to all "transfers" which means if you loan a gun to your son.....you have to get him checked.....when he hands it back to you....he has to get you checked....
> 
> It also means that training and safety classes.......will need to be corporate classes......since they are using universal background check laws to force out smaller gun trainers......
> 
> More Responsible....you are nuts.
> 
> we have 357,000,000 million guns in private hands.......our gun murder rate is going down, not up....in 2014 there were 8,124 gun murders....90% of those doing the gun murder had multiple convictions and used the illegally possessed guns illegally.....
> 
> That means less than 8,124 guns were used illegally.....
> 
> That means...356,991,876 million guns in private hands were used responsibly.....
> 
> Gun accidents in 2013 when we had 320,000,000 guns in private hands...505.
> 
> Not one point you made is factual, reasonable or has any bearing on the reality of gun owners and guns in the United STates.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blah blah blah you are so full of it it leaks out your ears ...
Click to expand...



Wow....what an informed discussion point......did you learn that in pre school?


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> no one has ever said we want guns to be made illegal accept morons like you ... heres is what is being said by us liberals ... every time you or any one sells a gun they have to look them up ... don't care if its private or a store sale ...  we also have been looking at if you buy bullets each time you have to be looked up to buy bullets too ... will this keep guns out of the hands pf criminals not entirely but it will make it a lot harderr to get bullets too... am I against people buying guns and bullets  ??? no they can buy all they want ... but they have to be held more responsible for their guns and bullets .. that what I believe ... the fact that you feel it makes it hard for you to buy a gun, I could care less ... the fact that it makes it harder for a crook to get one is fine with me ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts....current federal background checks are easily bypassed by criminals who use people with clean records to buy their guns, or they steal them.   Your call for universal background checks will just as easily be bypassed....
> 
> What you don't realize or care about...it that the anti gun leadership knows this too.....they don't want universal background checks because they think it will stop criminals...they know it won't.....what it does....is make the step for universal gun registration the next step.  You can't have universal background checks without gun registration.
> 
> Also.....they have changed the word from universal background checks for all "sales" to all "transfers" which means if you loan a gun to your son.....you have to get him checked.....when he hands it back to you....he has to get you checked....
> 
> It also means that training and safety classes.......will need to be corporate classes......since they are using universal background check laws to force out smaller gun trainers......
> 
> More Responsible....you are nuts.
> 
> we have 357,000,000 million guns in private hands.......our gun murder rate is going down, not up....in 2014 there were 8,124 gun murders....90% of those doing the gun murder had multiple convictions and used the illegally possessed guns illegally.....
> 
> That means less than 8,124 guns were used illegally.....
> 
> That means...356,991,876 million guns in private hands were used responsibly.....
> 
> Gun accidents in 2013 when we had 320,000,000 guns in private hands...505.
> 
> Not one point you made is factual, reasonable or has any bearing on the reality of gun owners and guns in the United STates.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blah blah blah you are so full of it it leaks out your ears ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....what an informed discussion point......did you learn that in pre school?
Click to expand...


Billy was just in his way telling you that what you said isn't what leftist lawyers told him to think.  He's not very good with words


----------



## 2aguy

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
Click to expand...



I am.....do you know the police can stop anyone for any reason in Japan and search them.  That prosecutors can coerce confessions from suspects and judges allow it...I have posted about this numerous times....

Japanese culture keeps their entire crime rate low, not just murder..........that and the vast police powers they have surrendered to authority...none of which would pass muster with anyone here.....


And when the Japanese Yakuza decide to kill each other...as they did in the 80s and in 2006 (it lasted 7 years)  They get all the guns they want as well as grenades....the primary motivating factor of Japanese criminals is money.....our criminals are young, and murder each other over insults on facebook....


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.




Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.

Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car


----------



## Rustic

The more this country thinks it should be like other countries(Europe,Japan,etc.) The quicker we will fail, but we were already on that path... Past the point of no return.


----------



## 2aguy

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
Click to expand...



This is what happens in Japan....a land of gun control when criminals decide to start shooting each other....their gun control laws do not stop it....

Gangs buying up guns and hitmen.....2015

Notice

By proposing high pay, the recruiters are trying to encourage the gang warfare by hinting that those who carry out the first hits will be paid more,” the source said.

A former high-ranking gang member living in the Kanto region said he began receiving calls asking about the availability of loaded guns from around late August, when the Yamaguchi-gumi split came to light.

The calls, eight in total, to the former gangster’s mobile phone continued into September.

Without saying who made the calls, the former gangster said the requests likely came from both sides involved in the Yamaguchi-gumi breakup.

The large number of intermediaries involved in supplying guns made it difficult to pinpoint who was actually going on the shopping spree, the former mobster said.


-----------------
By Benjamin David Baker
November 20, 2015

Japan Faces a Possible Mob War After Yakuza Gang Fractures

However, few things are more dangerous than when mob families go to war.

This fear seems to have been vindicated. According to the _Asahi Shimbun__, _both the Yamaguchi-gumi and the thirteen splinter groups have been busy buying up weapons and lining up hitmen. The first shots in this mob war might have already been fired outside a hot spring facility in Iida, Nagano Prefecture. The 43-year-old man who was shot and killed outside a bathhouse on October 6 wanted to leave a Yamaguchi-gumi affiliate and join the newly formed rival organization consisting of the rebel gangs.

In what might be retaliation for this murder, a boss in the original Yamaguchi-gumi was killed on Sunday. Tatsuyuki Hishida was found tied up in his apartment after being bludgeoned to death. Police report that the killing was most likely in response to the Yamaguchi-gumi’s split.

The Japanese government has good reason to fear a gang war. Between 1985 and 1987, 25 Yakuza members were killedand around 70 were injured in a feud involving affiliated rival gangs. That bloodshed was triggered in part over disagreement over who should become the head of the Yamaguchi-gumi. A few years ago, another war broke out between two rival gangs on the southern island of Kyushu, in which mobsters attacked each other with machine guns and grenades.






-------------
The Great Japanese Gang Wars

The season for pineapples (yakuza slang for hand grenades) may finally be over. Jake Adelstein and Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky on the bloody, seven-year battle between the Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai.


*In Southern Japan, the brutal pineapple season may finally be over; pineapple is yakuza slang for “hand grenade”—one of the many weapons utilized in a seven-year gang war between the Dojin-kai (1,000 members) and the splinter group the Kyushu Seido-kei (500 members). *

It’s a gang war in which there have been over 45 violent incidents, including bombings, shots exchanged during high-speed car chases, and 14 deaths. At least seven deaths, including one civilian's, were from gunfire; a phenomenally high figure when you consider the number of gun deaths for all of Japan in 2011 was eight people. (Japan has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world.) 

On June 11, senior members of the Dojin-kai and the Kyushu Seido-kai (a.k.a. Seido-kai) visited the Fukuoka Police Kurume Police Station with an official announcement that they were ending the conflict. TheSeido-kai brought a virtual white flag, a notification of their dissolution (解散届け), in which they wrote, “For a long time we have made everyone ill at ease, disturbed people, and been a nuisance to society. We have decided our breakup is the only way to restore peace.” The Dojin-kai in turn proclaimed, “Since the Seido-kai is dissolved, this situation is over and we apologize to people and the authorities for the anxiety we have caused.”
--------------------

Handouts for Hand Grenades: Yakuza Gang War Leads to an Explosive Bounty

TOKYO -- Japan’s Fukuoka Prefecture Police have become the first in Japan to offer cash rewards to anyone who reports finding a hand grenade (or "pineapples" in yakuza slang) starting today, April 2. A long-running gang war in the prefecture has raised public fear in the area, *and the handy hand-grenade has increasingly become the weapon of choice amongst rival gang members. *As Japan has put into place increasingly harsher laws regulating the actions of the Japanese mafia, aka the yakuza, forcing many out of business--the remaining thugs are fighting viciously over what's left of the pie

*When gang members aren't lobbing grenades or shooting at each other, they are shooting at the offices of companies trying to cut organized crime Last year, on Nov. 26, Toshihiro Uchino, the 72-year-old president of Hakushin Construction --which was trying to cut ties to local gangs---was shot to death outside his home in Kitakyushu.*


The most violent of the groups and considered the primary user of hand grenades is the Kyushu Seidokai. The Kyushu Seidokai has expanded into Tokyo, setting up several front companies, and joined forces with Tadamasa Goto, a former Yamaguchi-gumi boss turned Buddhist priest, who has now re-emerged as a powerful player in Japan's underworld. Tokyo Police are also worried that "pineapples" may be thrown around the metropolis in the near future. "A coalition between Goto and the Kyushu Seido-kai doesn't bode well for the public safety," said a detective who works organized crime. "We’re not excited about the possibility of yakuza lobbing grenades into Tokyo offices and homes."
--------

Japan braces for violence among 'yakuza' crime gangs

TOKYO — Japan is bracing for war.

Not with other countries, but with the nation's notorious gangsters.

A 43-year-old man was gunned down in the parking lot of a hot springs resort in western Japan earlier this month in what authorities say they fear could be the start of a deadly war among the nation's largest organized crime gangs, known collectively as the _yakuza_.

The powerful Yamaguchi-gumi crime syndicate, which marked its 100th anniversary this year, split into two rival groups in September. Police arrested a member of the Yamaguchi-gumi in the hot springs shooting and identified the victim as a member of the breakaway group.

Analysts said the rupture was due to long-running disputes over succession plans and high fees that member groups were required to pay Yamaguchi-gumi leaders.
-------
A dispute over the gang’s leadership in the early 1980s led to a two-year war that left an estimated 30 gangsters dead, 70 others wounded and more than 500 in police custody. However, there are no statistics on the number of civilians killed or injured in the violence.


----------



## 2aguy

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
Click to expand...



That is wrong......that isn't even close to being remotely true....

I have posted actual research that shows that 90% of gun murderers have multiple felony convictions....and 70-80% of their victims also have multiple felony convictions...

The myth, the lie that normal people are getting guns and just deciding to commit murder is exactly what I said...a myth and a lie.....

Did you actually look at this or did you just repeat whatever you heard from anti gun sources....?


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
Click to expand...

Shit happens.
Only dumbass fucking clueless fucknut would think a gun changes a person into a killer… Get your head out of your ass you fucking moron. Lol


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is wrong......that isn't even close to being remotely true....
> 
> I have posted actual research that shows that 90% of gun murderers have multiple felony convictions....and 70-80% of their victims also have multiple felony convictions...
> 
> The myth, the lie that normal people are getting guns and just deciding to commit murder is exactly what I said...a myth and a lie.....
> 
> Did you actually look at this or did you just repeat whatever you heard from anti gun sources....?
Click to expand...


Ah, but Mertex is making that shallow point that criminals who commit multiple crimes did an initial crime, and then they wren't a criminal, until the committed the crime.

Not sure what her point was, maybe that it's the gun's fault.  They were a fine upstanding youte until the evil aura from the gun caused them to go bad.  Who knows


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
Click to expand...


Many women regret abortions afterwards, sometimes years afterwards.  So your standard is consistent, right?  You want to ban abortions?


----------



## easyt65

Liberals have no plan to keep guns from criminals.

Obama gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, contributing to the murders of approx 500 people, to include 2 Americans.

Chicago continues to add to its record-setting gun violence / murder rate every day, but liberals ignore it while focusing on legislation designed to strip the right to gear arms from law-abiding citizens.

They do so put of fear that one day those law-abiding citizens will have had enough of their criminal, lying, deceiving tyranny and will fight back / rebel.


----------



## Fishlore

_Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_

Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.


----------



## Fishlore

Rustic said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this is America, not Japan. Millions upon millions have no desire to be anything like Japan…
Click to expand...

To be "anything like Japan" is a vague concept. Most Americans know very little about Japan. You don't have to speak Japanese to have an effective gun control. Your statement is illogical.


----------



## Fishlore

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
Click to expand...

Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this is America, not Japan. Millions upon millions have no desire to be anything like Japan…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be "anything like Japan" is a vague concept. Most Americans know very little about Japan. You don't have to speak Japanese to have an effective gun control. Your statement is illogical.
Click to expand...


Um ... you brought up Japan to support your point, Holmes.  Now you're saying Japan is different?


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.



I said "illegally obtained."  You didn't refute that.  Try again.  You realize that's the point of background checks, preventing criminals from getting guns.  I didn't find a definitive source, but in searching the Internet, I saw multiple references to that 3% of crimes are committed with guns obtained legally.  So, background checks could at most in theory prevent what percent of crimes?  Yet that's the whole focus of the left on gun control

And what you said isn't true, they don't always start out as legal guns.  In fact many are smuggled over by drug cartels as well.

g5000 says "Mexicans" and other "brown people" are always smuggling drugs and guns over.  He seems to have an issue with brown people and Mexicans


----------



## Ernie S.

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
Click to expand...

Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Click to expand...

Well you certainly showed YOUR true colors there, son. 
"Generalizations" about the Constitution? Is the Second Amendment a "generalization? Are you insane as well as ignorant?
Your proposal would require the complete repeal of the second and possibly the 4th as well, but sadly, it wouldn't do very much good other than clog the courts with prosecutions of government manufactured criminals.
Thugs will still have guns. If you remember from kindergarten, _bad people do not follow the rules_.


----------



## Rustic

Fishlore said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But this is America, not Japan. Millions upon millions have no desire to be anything like Japan…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be "anything like Japan" is a vague concept. Most Americans know very little about Japan. You don't have to speak Japanese to have an effective gun control. Your statement is illogical.
Click to expand...

Looking to other countries as a "model" of what to do is punching down... In other words it's regressive. Dumbass


----------



## Fishlore

Have you noticed that it is impossible for gun fetishists to defend their obsession without spewing childish insults and adopting a pose of condescending superiority?  This sort of thing only happens on anonymous bbs. Try it in scholarly print or legal argument and you get laughed off the stage. 

The anger comes from a lurking fear that their little tin phalluses are in immanent danger of confiscation, like when Mom took away their B-B guns. The condescension is compensation for deep but justified feelings of inferiority. The inchoate writing style indicates an advocate with a long history of being over-matched going back to sad days in middle school. 

It is no wonder that the civilized folk of America chortle at the Dad-blamed gun nuts. They are funny in a pathetic sort of way.


----------



## Rustic

Fishlore said:


> Have you noticed that it is impossible for gun fetishists to defend their obsession without spewing childish insults and adopting a pose of condescending superiority?  This sort of thing only happens on anonymous bbs. Try it in scholarly print or legal argument and you get laughed off the stage.
> 
> The anger comes from a lurking fear that their little tin phalluses are in immanent danger of confiscation, like when Mom took away their B-B guns. The condescension is compensation for deep but justified feelings of inferiority. The inchoate writing style indicates an advocate with a long history of being over-matched going back to sad days in middle school.
> 
> It is no wonder that the civilized folk of America chortle at the Dad-blamed gun nuts. They are funny in a pathetic sort of way.


----------



## Slyhunter

Fishlore said:


> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.


Define illegal gun.
Define legal gun.

A gun is a gun.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Click to expand...


I don'


Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
Click to expand...


LOL.

Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.

And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.  

It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.  

Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.


----------



## asaratis

It should be patently obvious that those who think we can suddenly be rid of those awful weapons that we call _guns_ do not realize a) how many guns there are in the United States today, b) how easy it is to obtain a gun, c) how many people do not read USMB and the idiotic posts that crop up here every day, d) how utterly futile it is to assume that you can take guns away from anyone other than the candy-ass liberals who think more government is the answer to all that ails us.

Big Government IS THE PROBLEM!...not the solution!


----------



## Fishlore

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don'
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
Click to expand...

What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work". 

Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.

Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.


----------



## Fishlore

Slyhunter said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
Click to expand...

Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.  

Define illegal immigrant.
Define legal immigrant.

An immigrant is an immigrant.

Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.


----------



## 2aguy

Fishlore said:


> Have you noticed that it is impossible for gun fetishists to defend their obsession without spewing childish insults and adopting a pose of condescending superiority?  This sort of thing only happens on anonymous bbs. Try it in scholarly print or legal argument and you get laughed off the stage.
> 
> The anger comes from a lurking fear that their little tin phalluses are in immanent danger of confiscation, like when Mom took away their B-B guns. The condescension is compensation for deep but justified feelings of inferiority. The inchoate writing style indicates an advocate with a long history of being over-matched going back to sad days in middle school.
> 
> It is no wonder that the civilized folk of America chortle at the Dad-blamed gun nuts. They are funny in a pathetic sort of way.




What is it with you anti gun nuts and fanasizing about penises and guns..........you can't go more than a few posts before you start talking about men's sex organs........you guys need help...fast.


----------



## Fishlore

Rustic said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that it is impossible for gun fetishists to defend their obsession without spewing childish insults and adopting a pose of condescending superiority?  This sort of thing only happens on anonymous bbs. Try it in scholarly print or legal argument and you get laughed off the stage.
> 
> The anger comes from a lurking fear that their little tin phalluses are in immanent danger of confiscation, like when Mom took away their B-B guns. The condescension is compensation for deep but justified feelings of inferiority. The inchoate writing style indicates an advocate with a long history of being over-matched going back to sad days in middle school.
> 
> It is no wonder that the civilized folk of America chortle at the Dad-blamed gun nuts. They are funny in a pathetic sort of way.
Click to expand...

No, it's because you are noisy and smell funny. You can't stop jerking when something comes out of your tiny little barrel.


----------



## Rustic

Fishlore said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that it is impossible for gun fetishists to defend their obsession without spewing childish insults and adopting a pose of condescending superiority?  This sort of thing only happens on anonymous bbs. Try it in scholarly print or legal argument and you get laughed off the stage.
> 
> The anger comes from a lurking fear that their little tin phalluses are in immanent danger of confiscation, like when Mom took away their B-B guns. The condescension is compensation for deep but justified feelings of inferiority. The inchoate writing style indicates an advocate with a long history of being over-matched going back to sad days in middle school.
> 
> It is no wonder that the civilized folk of America chortle at the Dad-blamed gun nuts. They are funny in a pathetic sort of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you are noisy and smell funny. You can't stop jerking when something comes out of your tiny little barrel.
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

Fishlore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> Define illegal immigrant.
> Define legal immigrant.
> 
> An immigrant is an immigrant.
> 
> Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.
Click to expand...

a guest vs a trespasser.
Not the same thing.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> Define illegal immigrant.
> Define legal immigrant.
> 
> An immigrant is an immigrant.
> 
> Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.
Click to expand...

You really can't be as stupid as you look...


----------



## The Rabbi

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> Define illegal immigrant.
> Define legal immigrant.
> 
> An immigrant is an immigrant.
> 
> Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't be as stupid as you look...
Click to expand...

You say that like it might be true.  Remember where we are.  USMB is home to people with no more qualification to discuss events and policies than they have to do brain surgery.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
Click to expand...


Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you certainly showed YOUR true colors there, son.
> "Generalizations" about the Constitution? Is the Second Amendment a "generalization? Are you insane as well as ignorant?
> Your proposal would require the complete repeal of the second and possibly the 4th as well, but sadly, it wouldn't do very much good other than clog the courts with prosecutions of government manufactured criminals.
> Thugs will still have guns. If you remember from kindergarten, _bad people do not follow the rules_.
Click to expand...


I always like how liberals say Republicans are so dumb they think passing a law will get rid of drugs.  Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> 
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don'
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
Click to expand...


It's comic how you talk about pro-gun right advocates as "condescending" and yet you give a continual stream of these:  "One item is never enough for the fetish collector."  Physician, heal thyself


----------



## kaz

2aguy said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed that it is impossible for gun fetishists to defend their obsession without spewing childish insults and adopting a pose of condescending superiority?  This sort of thing only happens on anonymous bbs. Try it in scholarly print or legal argument and you get laughed off the stage.
> 
> The anger comes from a lurking fear that their little tin phalluses are in immanent danger of confiscation, like when Mom took away their B-B guns. The condescension is compensation for deep but justified feelings of inferiority. The inchoate writing style indicates an advocate with a long history of being over-matched going back to sad days in middle school.
> 
> It is no wonder that the civilized folk of America chortle at the Dad-blamed gun nuts. They are funny in a pathetic sort of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you anti gun nuts and fanasizing about penises and guns..........you can't go more than a few posts before you start talking about men's sex organs........you guys need help...fast.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's the left who continually equate a gun with a penis, clearly showing where that particular problem is.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> Define illegal immigrant.
> Define legal immigrant.
> 
> An immigrant is an immigrant.
> 
> Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.
Click to expand...


The difference is that being a thing, a gun can start out legal, but then it can be obtained illegally.  If a stolen gun is sold, it's an illegal gun.  There's no analogy for that with immigrants and illegal aliens


----------



## Ernie S.

The Rabbi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> Define illegal immigrant.
> Define legal immigrant.
> 
> An immigrant is an immigrant.
> 
> Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't be as stupid as you look...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that like it might be true.  Remember where we are.  USMB is home to people with no more qualification to discuss events and policies than they have to do brain surgery.
Click to expand...

I realize where we are and that there are those here not particularly high up the evolutionary ladder, however, this one has a good command of the language and seems relatively intelligent, maybe even a stand out among those on the Left, BUT to not grasp the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant?
Seems to be willful ignorance from where I sit.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Criminals buy illegal guns now. The vast majority of crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. It's just a fact and you didn't solve it_
> 
> Every illegal gun starts out as a legal gun and you can't stop it. No legal guns = no illegal guns either.
> 
> 
> 
> Define illegal gun.
> Define legal gun.
> 
> A gun is a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me guess: you are on Ted Cruz's short list of Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> Define illegal immigrant.
> Define legal immigrant.
> 
> An immigrant is an immigrant.
> 
> Tell Mom you think your water should be tested for lead. Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't be as stupid as you look...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that like it might be true.  Remember where we are.  USMB is home to people with no more qualification to discuss events and policies than they have to do brain surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize where we are and that there are those here not particularly high up the evolutionary ladder, however, this one has a good command of the language and seems relatively intelligent, maybe even a stand out among those on the Left, BUT to not grasp the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant?
> Seems to be willful ignorance from where I sit.
Click to expand...

I am in complete agreement with you. I brought up the absurd idea that an immigrant is an immigrant to show the logical folly the claim that a gun is a gun, legal or illegal.

The legal status of a firearm is as easy to determine as the legal status of an immigrant and is done by pretty much the same method.

When statistics were cited about the use of illegal guns in crime, I responded with the statement which, although obviously true, seemed to confuse my interlocutor, namely that every gun begins as a legal gun.

Guns are legally manufactured and legally imported by gun wholesalers and dealers. These legal guns are legally transferred to retailers. It is at this point, or even further down the chain of custody, that the once-legal gun gets its illegal status.

It is difficult to know much about illegal guns in circulation but quite easy to identify the the starting and ending points in the transfer of a gun now in possession of the police because of its use in a crime. It is from these records that the statement about the prevalency of illegal guns in illegal situations is drawn.

That same data shows that the majority of once-legal but now illegal guns pass through a small minority of licensed gun dealers. Police investigation in places like NYC and Chicago have mapped out heavily travelled trails on which guns purchased out-of-state often by straw buyers, end up in the wrong hands.

Focusing law enforcement resources on the hot spots would significantly reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation without having any effect at all on the legal guns. Why is the promising and time-tested method of investigation not being followed? Because hidden provisions in the relevant federal legislation prevent it. This has been the work of gun industry lobbyists, not legitimate gun owners.


----------



## Londoner

Kaz,

There is no certain way to prevent every case of illegal drug use.

There is no certain way to prevent every case of murder.

There is no certain way to prevent every case of speeding or drunk driving.

But we still have laws against these things so as to lower their occurrence.

No liberal I know thinks that increasing background checks is going to prevent every gun murder - but if it makes it harder for one mentally retarded psychopath to shoot up a school, than the goal is achieved.

On the OP's logic we shouldn't have laws against murder, rape or torture because said law cannot stop every instance of rape, murder and torture. This is wrongheaded. The test of any law or regulation or oversight mechanism must be if it reduces (not eliminates) the unwanted behavior. 

There is nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that congress can't regulate who has access to guns. The framers didn't say that every prisoner in a maximum security prison has a right to carry a loaded weapon, nor did they say that kindergarten students could pack machine guns. These matters were left suitably open to legislation.

(And this coming from someone who has no problem with guns or gun ownership)


----------



## Fishlore

The OP asked "Liberals, what's your plan?"  I posted my plan. Did I expect conservatives to like it? Did the conservatives expect that they would like it? Of course not on both counts. Does this mean that the thread is a mistake? No, it is interesting and helpful to see the opposing point of view. One might even engage in debate about some of evidence or argument presented by Liberals presenting their plans as requested. It's a debate forum, isn't it?

But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
Click to expand...


Smokin' the good shit today, eh, fishbrain?


----------



## Fishlore

Jarlaxle said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007
> 
> So, you keep repeating the canard that if we make guns illegal then:
> 
> 1) Criminals won't be able to get guns
> 2) Everyone will be safe because no gun and the criminals won't commit the crimes and we're all safe without guns.
> 
> So what's your plan?  There are 310 million guns in the US and hundreds millions more in the world.  Yet you're going to keep all those out of the hands of criminals?  Seriously?  What's your plan to accomplish that?  6387 posts so far, and no actual plan from any of the liberals?  So what's your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ban possession of all firearms and ammunition Illegal possession carries a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year in jail. The fine and jail terms double every year. Five years later it is a $16,000 fine and 16 years in jail.
> 
> 2. Information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in illegal possession of a firearm receives a reward equal to the fine on the year of arrest. Rat out someone who has a gun seven years after passage of the law and collect a $64,000 reward. Folks will be lined up around the block of every police station waiting to turn in friends, family and neighbors for that reward money.
> 
> 3. All persons entering the US are subject to search for guns and ammunition. Conviction carries a mandatory life sentence without parole.
> 
> What a glorious and happy land America will be only ten years after this ground-breaking law comes into effect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smokin' the good shit today, eh, fishbrain?
Click to expand...

It is sad to see someone with the necessary social capital to post online who is restricted to such a pathetic jibe.


----------



## kaz

Londoner said:


> On the OP's logic we shouldn't have laws against murder, rape or torture because said law cannot stop every instance of rape, murder and torture



That's a ridiculous analogy.  Buying a gun is like committing murder?   Most gun owners are honest citizens who never harm anyone with the gun.  How many murderers never harm anyone with murder?

The acquisition of a tool is not analogous in any reasonable way to committing a crime.

Criminals buying guns is already illegal.  Committing murder with a gun is already illegal.

Criminals get guns anyway.  3% of gun crimes are committed with a gun purchased legally.  The issue is with our gun laws that you're preventing honest citizens from having guns when and where we need it.  You aren't affecting criminal's ability to get them.  They break the law.  Think about it, they are ... criminals ...


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> The OP asked "Liberals, what's your plan?"  I posted my plan. Did I expect conservatives to like it? Did the conservatives expect that they would like it? Of course not on both counts. Does this mean that the thread is a mistake? No, it is interesting and helpful to see the opposing point of view. One might even engage in debate about some of evidence or argument presented by Liberals presenting their plans as requested. It's a debate forum, isn't it?
> 
> But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?



The problem with your plan is that it would do more harm than good in this country.  The question isn't how we'd do it in a made up world, it's what do you propose that would work in this one.

My plan is to maximize keeping criminals in jail to reduce repeat crimes and let people defend themselves.  You'd start a rebellion trying to confiscate 310 million guns


----------



## JTFM

kaz said:


> You'd start a rebellion trying to confiscate 310 million guns



What a lot of the anti gun folks fail to realize is how many Americans really are pro gun ownership.    Even if they don't own a one.   That includes many of the folks that would be expected to do the confiscating.   

It would be anarchy with few people left to control it to meet the ends wanted by the anti gunners.


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asked "Liberals, what's your plan?"  I posted my plan. Did I expect conservatives to like it? Did the conservatives expect that they would like it? Of course not on both counts. Does this mean that the thread is a mistake? No, it is interesting and helpful to see the opposing point of view. One might even engage in debate about some of evidence or argument presented by Liberals presenting their plans as requested. It's a debate forum, isn't it?
> 
> But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your plan is that it would do more harm than good in this country.  The question isn't how we'd do it in a made up world, it's what do you propose that would work in this one.
> 
> My plan is to maximize keeping criminals in jail to reduce repeat crimes and let people defend themselves.  You'd start a rebellion trying to confiscate 310 million guns
Click to expand...

The rebellion fantasy is a big part of the gun lover's world. Rebellion against an oppressive government, rebellion against foreign invaders, now rebellion against a gun confiscation law. They are all dreams.

For one thing, gun owners are not connected and are united only by their guns. They don't know each other, they have no communication or logistics and most of them are middle-aged country boys driving pickup trucks. Not much of a challenge for the state police.

The fantasy is one of jack-booted thugs standing on the front lawn exchanging fire with our gun-toting hero. That isn't the way things work. Court orders, civil fines, etc. the slow squeeze that collapsed the rebellious bluster of the gun nuts holed up in that wildlife sanctuary. Having a gun doesn't make you a soldier.

One good thing about that notional "rebellion" it would solidify majority support for gun confiscation. The American pea pull are sick and tired of these gun nuts with their crazy ideas.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Dude, the "I dream of North Korea" thread is in the other forum.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> 
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don'
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fishy's plan ^ is a Police State for all!  Brilliant.  UnAmerican as all get-out.  But very -- uh -- clever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
Click to expand...


As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:

What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.

The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.

That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.


----------



## Mertex

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
Click to expand...


Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.



Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church


As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
Click to expand...


Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!




No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?


----------



## asaratis

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
Click to expand...

Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!

What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.


----------



## Fishlore

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don'
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stern enforcement of specific laws doesn't make America a police state. Our suppression attempts in regard to illegal drugs doesn't make us a police state. Similar legal effort to make guns illegal and remove them from American society wouldn't make us a police state either. I respect your strong opposition to my proposal but wild exaggeration isn't effective. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun legislation on the planet but nobody is seriously suggesting that Japan is a police state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
Click to expand...

The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.

 His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore. 

Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don'
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey fish douche:  You cannot simply pass a law such as the simplistic crap YOU proposed since the Constitution says which laws are unauthorized and the Second amendment still exists.
> 
> To accomplish your "goal" first you'd have to repeal the Second amendment.
> 
> And confiscation of all guns is the very first step IN a police state.  Try to learn something of history someday.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
Click to expand...


Hey fishfart:

While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?

YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.

Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.

Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.

But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."


----------



## Arizona Willie

asaratis said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
Click to expand...

========
Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".

How many guns have been taken away from you?

Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.


----------



## Fishlore

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don'
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I read one of these insulting, childish posts filled with unsupported generalizations about the Constitution and the history of the world, I know I am dealing with an angry, uneducated gun nut who posts on public forums to express his uncomprehending rage at things he doesn't understand and fears unreasonably. It used to make me sad, now I see it as the intellectual equivalent of gum on the sidewalk. Thanks for showing us your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fishfart:
> 
> While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?
> 
> YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.
> 
> Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.
> 
> But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."
Click to expand...

This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asked "Liberals, what's your plan?"  I posted my plan. Did I expect conservatives to like it? Did the conservatives expect that they would like it? Of course not on both counts. Does this mean that the thread is a mistake? No, it is interesting and helpful to see the opposing point of view. One might even engage in debate about some of evidence or argument presented by Liberals presenting their plans as requested. It's a debate forum, isn't it?
> 
> But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your plan is that it would do more harm than good in this country.  The question isn't how we'd do it in a made up world, it's what do you propose that would work in this one.
> 
> My plan is to maximize keeping criminals in jail to reduce repeat crimes and let people defend themselves.  You'd start a rebellion trying to confiscate 310 million guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebellion fantasy is a big part of the gun lover's world. Rebellion against an oppressive government, rebellion against foreign invaders, now rebellion against a gun confiscation law. They are all dreams.
> 
> For one thing, gun owners are not connected and are united only by their guns. They don't know each other, they have no communication or logistics and most of them are middle-aged country boys driving pickup trucks. Not much of a challenge for the state police.
> 
> The fantasy is one of jack-booted thugs standing on the front lawn exchanging fire with our gun-toting hero. That isn't the way things work. Court orders, civil fines, etc. the slow squeeze that collapsed the rebellious bluster of the gun nuts holed up in that wildlife sanctuary. Having a gun doesn't make you a soldier.
> 
> One good thing about that notional "rebellion" it would solidify majority support for gun confiscation. The American pea pull are sick and tired of these gun nuts with their crazy ideas.
Click to expand...


You sure like to tell people who you don't know, like or understand what they think.  As for me, I'm not a rebellion buff, I think it's pretty unlikely.  So on that point I agree.  But If you think trying to disarm the country won't cause one, you just go ahead and try it, that would do it.  It would be a civil war.  And the military would be split at best.

No politician would be stupid to try it.  The question isn't to come up with a theoretical plan that would work in an alternate reality, it's to  propose an actual plan that would work in this one.  You didn't accomplish that.


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asked "Liberals, what's your plan?"  I posted my plan. Did I expect conservatives to like it? Did the conservatives expect that they would like it? Of course not on both counts. Does this mean that the thread is a mistake? No, it is interesting and helpful to see the opposing point of view. One might even engage in debate about some of evidence or argument presented by Liberals presenting their plans as requested. It's a debate forum, isn't it?
> 
> But what about the hostility, the sarcasm, the name calling? Is getting the opportunity to indulge in these attacks the real reason for asking for Liberal plans? Seriously, Dude, is that where you are coming from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your plan is that it would do more harm than good in this country.  The question isn't how we'd do it in a made up world, it's what do you propose that would work in this one.
> 
> My plan is to maximize keeping criminals in jail to reduce repeat crimes and let people defend themselves.  You'd start a rebellion trying to confiscate 310 million guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rebellion fantasy is a big part of the gun lover's world. Rebellion against an oppressive government, rebellion against foreign invaders, now rebellion against a gun confiscation law. They are all dreams.
> 
> For one thing, gun owners are not connected and are united only by their guns. They don't know each other, they have no communication or logistics and most of them are middle-aged country boys driving pickup trucks. Not much of a challenge for the state police.
> 
> The fantasy is one of jack-booted thugs standing on the front lawn exchanging fire with our gun-toting hero. That isn't the way things work. Court orders, civil fines, etc. the slow squeeze that collapsed the rebellious bluster of the gun nuts holed up in that wildlife sanctuary. Having a gun doesn't make you a soldier.
> 
> One good thing about that notional "rebellion" it would solidify majority support for gun confiscation. The American pea pull are sick and tired of these gun nuts with their crazy ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure like to tell people who you don't know, like or understand what they think.  As for me, I'm not a rebellion buff, I think it's pretty unlikely.  So on that point I agree.  But If you think trying to disarm the country won't cause one, you just go ahead and try it, that would do it.  It would be a civil war.  And the military would be split at best.
> 
> No politician would be stupid to try it.  The question isn't to come up with a theoretical plan that would work in an alternate reality, it's to  propose an actual plan that would work in this one.  You didn't accomplish that.
Click to expand...

No, I don't like squelching trolls but like rats in the barn, you can't just let 'em run wild. As for the tough talk about rebellion and Second Amendment heroes rising up to defend us all aginst tyranny etc. etc. I note that there is never a gun nut around when you need one. For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers. 

As for an actual plan that would work in the present circumstances, there isn't one but the flaw isn't in the process it's in the politics. This will change. The percentage of families owning a gun has been dropping for 40 years. All that is holding up the present situation is the antique and utterly corrupt political system.  The gun nuts are getting older and fewer every year. It's the gun industry that is propping up the carnage.


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
Click to expand...


Sorry man, who do you want to murder?


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
Click to expand...


you want to make sure we don't have buns when we need them


----------



## Mertex

asaratis said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
Click to expand...


Are all conservatives that stupid that they think that more people owning more guns will reduce crime, or not affect the number of crimes?  Apparently so, because they even believe in buying guns for their children.  How stupid is that?  As long as conservatives keep fighting for even mentals to be allowed to buy guns, and gun shows to sell guns without registering buyers....the the more senseless crimes we will have.


*The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
*
The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands.* The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.*

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.[/QUOTE]

Apparently you've never visited a prison.  If you believe that life is worse on the outside than it is in prison, you're either very ignorant or totally naive.

Harsher punishments isn't the answer.  Sending people to prison doesn't stop criminals.....allowing idiots to own guns is the problem.  Encouraging people to buy and carry guns makes it easier for the "not right in the head - quick to anger people" to end up killing for stupid reasons.

Road Rage Causes Drivers to Shoot and Kill Each Other


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you want to make sure we don't have buns when we need them
Click to expand...


You can have all the "buns" you want.....but some people clearly shouldn't have GUNS.


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are all conservatives that stupid that they think that more people owning more guns will reduce crime, or not affect the number of crimes?  Apparently so, because they even believe in buying guns for their children.  How stupid is that?  As long as conservatives keep fighting for even mentals to be allowed to buy guns, and gun shows to sell guns without registering buyers....the the more senseless crimes we will have.
> 
> 
> *The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
> *
> The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands.* The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.*
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
Click to expand...


Apparently you've never visited a prison.  If you believe that life is worse on the outside than it is in prison, you're either very ignorant or totally naive.

Harsher punishments isn't the answer.  Sending people to prison doesn't stop criminals.....allowing idiots to own guns is the problem.  Encouraging people to buy and carry guns makes it easier for the "not right in the head - quick to anger people" to end up killing for stupid reasons.

Road Rage Causes Drivers to Shoot and Kill Each Other[/QUOTE]
More guns = less crime... Fact


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
Click to expand...


I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.


----------



## Mertex

Rustic said:


> More guns = less crime... Fact



Your opinion isn't fact.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are all conservatives that stupid that they think that more people owning more guns will reduce crime, or not affect the number of crimes?  Apparently so, because they even believe in buying guns for their children.  How stupid is that?  As long as conservatives keep fighting for even mentals to be allowed to buy guns, and gun shows to sell guns without registering buyers....the the more senseless crimes we will have.
> 
> 
> *The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
> *
> The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands.* The stricter gun laws of other “advanced countries” have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents—even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.*
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you've never visited a prison.  If you believe that life is worse on the outside than it is in prison, you're either very ignorant or totally naive.
> 
> Harsher punishments isn't the answer.  Sending people to prison doesn't stop criminals.....allowing idiots to own guns is the problem.  Encouraging people to buy and carry guns makes it easier for the "not right in the head - quick to anger people" to end up killing for stupid reasons.
> 
> Road Rage Causes Drivers to Shoot and Kill Each Other
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More guns = less crime... Fact
Click to expand...


Your opinion isn't fact.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Mertex

Rustic said:


>



You're deflecting.....you're opinion isn't fact.


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're deflecting.....you're opinion isn't fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
Click to expand...

No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
Click to expand...


So where should guns be allowed?


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".
> 
> How many guns have been taken away from you?
> 
> Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.
Click to expand...


True dat, Obama's lead an explosion of gun ownership!


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers.



You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

You are full-of-shit---


----------



## asaratis

Arizona Willie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".
> 
> How many guns have been taken away from you?
> 
> Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.
Click to expand...

None.  ...and there never will be any taken from me...not without having all guns registered first.  That's the first step...find out who has them.


----------



## asaratis

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.  Depending on the target, the gun can be used for a number of goals.....to hit a paper target, a tin can, a bottle, a game animal, a pest animal.  Among the human targets are...enemy combatants, rival gang members, candidates for murder, crime victims, dangerous criminals and others...depending on who is aiming the gun.

Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.

...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.


----------



## Ernie S.

Mertex said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
Click to expand...

You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don'
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fishfart:
> 
> While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?
> 
> YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.
> 
> Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.
> 
> But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.
Click to expand...

More useless ad hom... STILL no substance. I expect no more from Liberals.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
Click to expand...

No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone



What a pile of shit.  You ridiculous leftist bigots are so full of crap


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
Click to expand...


Swish, missed again.  You have convinced me that you are one mentally ill nut job who would have your Constitutional right to a gun removed.  Just show them these posts and they should have no problem proving in court what a whack job you are.  You think guns were "created for the sole purpose of killing people," you are ... one ... sick ... fuck ...


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
Click to expand...


What is your plan to accomplish keeping guns from  criminals while not keeping guns from honest citizens?  And why wouldn't you want to keep guns from people when according to you we're all one angry argument from killing our families?


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".
> 
> How many guns have been taken away from you?
> 
> Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.
Click to expand...


It's been a gun boom because of Obama.  Whack job politicians typically cause that


----------



## Rustic

kaz said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".
> 
> How many guns have been taken away from you?
> 
> Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been a gun boom because of Obama.  Whack job politicians typically cause that
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers



That's the problem with making up facts as you go, you're frequently wrong.  Actually, it's reverse many more crimes are prevented with guns than occur with them.  But you don't hear about those, the media's not interested.  And they frequently aren't reported

.



Fishlore said:


> As for an actual plan that would work in the present circumstances, there isn't one but the flaw isn't in the process it's in the politics. This will change. The percentage of families owning a gun has been dropping for 40 years. All that is holding up the present situation is the antique and utterly corrupt political system.  The gun nuts are getting older and fewer every year. It's the gun industry that is propping up the carnage.



Keep telling yourself that ...


----------



## jon_berzerk

asaratis said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".
> 
> How many guns have been taken away from you?
> 
> Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None.  ...and there never will be any taken from me...not without having all guns registered first.  That's the first step...find out who has them.
Click to expand...


fat chance of that


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More guns = less crime... Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion isn't fact.
Click to expand...


That isn't his opinion.  You make up your "facts"


----------



## kaz

Rustic said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
Click to expand...


The point in that wasn't about whether cars or guns were a right.  That that it mattered, she didn't understand it anyway


----------



## Rustic

Firearm registration is unconstitutional… And absolutely un-American. LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk

registration = confiscation


----------



## kaz

asaratis said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.  Depending on the target, the gun can be used for a number of goals.....to hit a paper target, a tin can, a bottle, a game animal, a pest animal.  Among the human targets are...enemy combatants, rival gang members, candidates for murder, crime victims, dangerous criminals and others...depending on who is aiming the gun.
> 
> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
> 
> ...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.
Click to expand...


Yes, Mertex is a sick fuck who badly needs mental health treatment.  OMG, a projectile flying through the air, there's no purpose in that but to kill a person!

She definitely should be legally barred from guns


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
Click to expand...


Mertex isn't after criminals or lowering murder rates, it's the guns she's after.  She wants a government monopoly on them.  It's like liberals call you greedy, while they are taking your money by force ... with guns ...


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*



You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
Click to expand...

Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand. 

And there is a lot they don't understand, metaphor is one of those things you have to be on the college track to get taught in the high schools they stumbled through. The sad little takeaway of  that sputtering rebuttal, namely that the metaphor signifies I "equate guns with sex" reveals how illiterate your average pistol kisser really is.

 Of course most of them live in red states where public schools are deliberately atrocious, designed to keep the lower orders in their places. It's down near the bottom of the social scale in those backward regions where "at least I'm white" has provided a rationale for all sorts of bigotry and extra-legal violence. Fortunately, these cultural dinosaurs are dying off at an accelerating rate. They will not be missed.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
Click to expand...


You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.

My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.

You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
Click to expand...

Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party. 

This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.

His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
Click to expand...

A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

OH look! He has a vocabulary and says nothing.


----------



## Flash

Fishlore said:


> [QU
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.



Are you always this much of a pompous ass or do you just pretend to be one on the Internet?


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> [
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?



He was evidently educated in a Blue state.  Don't expect much in the way of intellect.   He is a master at being an obnoxious asshole but not much else.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
Click to expand...

*Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch? 

When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?

If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun? 

If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?

You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
> Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?
> 
> When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?
> 
> If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?
> 
> If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?
> 
> You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.
Click to expand...


Gun laws aren't effective because we don't enforce them for criminals, just honest citizens.  If you've had your right to own a gun removed through due process of law and try to buy a gun.  There is no consequence, you can just move on to the next gun dealer ... or your drug dealer ... and keep trying until you score.  You do nothing to keep guns from criminals.  Just honest citizens


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don'
> LOL.
> 
> Wrong.  I simply point out the obvious, which is that you are none to bright and you are also wrong.  UNLESS you repeal the Second Amendment, your idiotic "plan" cannot work.
> 
> And confiscation of guns IS a traditional move by tyrants to make sure the populace is unable to effectively defend itself against his aggression and usurpations.
> 
> It is not even open to doubt that you are far less educated than you pretend.  Further, I am not angry and not a gun nut.  BUT, I do support our Constitution and the right of a free people to have a useful mode of self protection against the imbecility you support.
> 
> Try again, ya hapless hopeless dipwad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fishfart:
> 
> While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?
> 
> YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.
> 
> Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.
> 
> But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.
Click to expand...


Fishfucker:

You remain wrong.  No surprise.


----------



## Mertex

Rustic said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
Click to expand...


Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Just honest citizens



That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

No one is a criminal until they commit a crime.

But if you want to treat everyone like a criminal waiting to happen then why don't you propose getting rid of the 4th amendment or the fifth?

After all if we're all just criminals in waiting then we should just let the police search any house any time they want.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.
Click to expand...


But _*you*_ are the moron.  You are clearly NOT trying to change it.  For that would REQUIRE a Constitutional Amendment.  And you liberal goobers aren't engaged in a process of seeking to Amend the Constitution at this time.


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
Click to expand...


The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed.  I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.

You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
> 
> You are full-of-shit---
Click to expand...



That's not just his opinion.....there are studies to back that up, but I see you can't handle facts. 

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides,
and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf


----------



## Mertex

asaratis said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are all liberals so stupid that they believe that gun control efforts (laws) will affect the use of guns by criminals?  The problem that liberals want to abate via gun control WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY GUN CONTROL LAWS!!
> 
> What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL!  We need sparse prisons.  We need sentences that include outdoor HARD LABOR instead of air conditioned weight rooms.  We need prisons where life is worse on the inside than on the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Conservatives keep screaming that Obama is " going to take our guns away ".
> 
> How many guns have been taken away from you?
> 
> Hmmm, all I hear is crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None.  ...and there never will be any taken from me...not without having all guns registered first.  That's the first step...find out who has them.
Click to expand...


Well, that's the whole argument.  Many conservatives and liberal gun owners are okay with people being able to buy them without background checks....which obviously would rule out some nuts and eliminate some needless deaths.


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
> Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?
> 
> When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?
> 
> If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?
> 
> If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?
> 
> You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws aren't effective because we don't enforce them for criminals, just honest citizens.  If you've had your right to own a gun removed through due process of law and try to buy a gun.  There is no consequence, you can just move on to the next gun dealer ... or your drug dealer ... and keep trying until you score.  You do nothing to keep guns from criminals.  Just honest citizens
Click to expand...

The need to "move on to the next gun dealer" is evidence that the first gun dealer has frustrated your attempted illegal purchase. Having to purchase your gun from a dealer in illegal drugs is evidence that dealers in legal drugs (or guns) won't sell to you. You cite, in your own garbled way, two illustrations of the law keeping guns away from illegal purchasers. I am not at all surprised that you cannot comprehend my posts; it is amusing that you don't seem able to understand your own posts either. Keep up the good work!


----------



## Fishlore

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you mean to say, or rather what you would say if your brain were not addled by wearing your sister's underpants over your head is "UNLESS the Supreme Court reverses its most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment, your idiotic plan cannot work".
> 
> Supreme Court rulings get reversed more often than you think, or possibly in greater numbers than you can count. I cited two famous ones. As for my "plan" being idiotic, well, it was drafted to win the attention of idiots. Based on your garbled fuliminations, I'd say it has exceeded beyond all expectation.
> 
> Gun nuts have become a comic trope in American popular culture. Members of the ever-shrinking minority of silly little guys that own guns now owns a dozen guns, drooling over them in the solitary splendor of the bedroom closet. Why does a gun nut need a dozen guns in the closet? For the same reason  he needs a dozen girlie magazines under the mattress. One item is never enough for the fetish collector. Stay calm and keep 'em loaded. America needs laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fishfart:
> 
> While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?
> 
> YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.
> 
> Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.
> 
> But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishfucker:
> 
> You remain wrong.  No surprise.
Click to expand...

I can see how hard you must have struggled to come up with this post. The creative effort needed to turn "Fishlore" into "Fishfucker"  has left you all sweaty and panting. The body of your argument is a testament to your rich background of knowledge, sharp analysis and deft argument. It may be the wisest thing you have ever put on the board. You keep thinking, it's what you are good at.


----------



## Mertex

asaratis said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.
Click to expand...


Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but *their main purpose is to kill.  *



People pull the triggers, but *guns are designed to kill.* *Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.*

That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.

As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--*guns are designed for no other purpose.*

*Guns are made to kill.* And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. *Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.*

Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
Guns are made to kill.




> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.


That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they  are used to actually defend someone.

_In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. *In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. *And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year._

The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting?  The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period,* the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.*
Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality



> ...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.


And?  This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?


----------



## Mertex

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many shooters are not criminals until they get ahold of a gun......what needs to be done is "keeping guns out of irresponsible people" - like in this case.  But most gun nuts think everyone is entitled to a gun, and an AR15 if they so desire.  Hope these irresponsible people only kill those in their own families....that seems fair.
> 
> Child in back seat gets ‘ahold of gun,’ shoots and kills woman driving car
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
Click to expand...


Ernie....you call me an ignoramus and then go on to show your utter stupidity.  Of course that one incident is not my focus.  The news are rife with story after story of supposed "responsible" gun owners who end up dead or shoot some innocent person over stupid stuff, but I guess in your mind, that never happens.  You've bought into the NRA myth that the more guns you have the safer you are and everyone around you is safer, too.

The challenge to that argument is that, data show, guns are rarely used in self-defense -- especially relative to the rate at which they're used in criminal homicides or suicides. A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, put those numbers in some perspective, and I dug up the raw numbers from the FBI's homicide data. Take a look:
Guns in America: For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  No one says, OMG, do you see what that idiot did in that car, what is wrong with cars!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.
Click to expand...

Dream on... Hope and change. Lol


----------



## Mertex

Rustic said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dream on... Hope and change. Lol
Click to expand...


As opposed to "Make America Hate again"......I'll stick to the hope and change.......it is a lot better than what Doofus GW Bush offered up.


----------



## Mertex

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> 
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fishfart:
> 
> While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?
> 
> YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.
> 
> Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.
> 
> But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishfucker:
> 
> You remain wrong.  No surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see how hard you must have struggled to come up with this post. The creative effort needed to turn "Fishlore" into "Fishfucker"  has left you all sweaty and panting. The body of your argument is a testament to your rich background of knowledge, sharp analysis and deft argument. It may be the wisest thing you have ever put on the board. You keep thinking, it's what you are good at.
Click to expand...


You notice how quickly these supposedly "responsible" gun owners defending their myths that guns keep everyone safe get angry and make it personal and start calling you names?  And we're supposed to trust that these are normal, intelligent, responsible people and worthy of carrying an instrument that can kill me!  Geez!


----------



## Mertex

Skull Pilot said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed.  I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either
Click to expand...


So, in other words, you are admitting that you have broken the law.  Are you one of those who considers themselves a "responsible" gun owner just because you haven't been caught breaking the law?


----------



## Fishlore

Mertex said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but *their main purpose is to kill.  *
> 
> 
> 
> People pull the triggers, but *guns are designed to kill.* *Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.*
> 
> That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.
> 
> As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--*guns are designed for no other purpose.*
> 
> *Guns are made to kill.* And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. *Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.*
> 
> Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
> Guns are made to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they  are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> _In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. *In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. *And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year._
> 
> The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
> 
> But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting?  The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period,* the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.*
> Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?  This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?
Click to expand...

_Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal._
That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.

The gun is a killing device. That central fact should not be blurred by discussion of the use of guns to defend against criminals or to deter criminal attacks because the reason that guns can be used in these ways is that guns have the power to kill. Bank robbers and policmen carry guns for the same reason: they give the person with the gun the power to kill. The goals of the robber and the cops are very different but their use of the gun is the same.

The black powder muzzle loader and the double-barreled shotgun are designed to kill animals, not people. They used to be far more common in family arsenals than revolvers and automatic pistols which are designed to kill people. Those long guns have dwindled into rarity status among today's gun nuts, whose taste runs almost exclusively to automatic weapons, the people-killers.

You can't get far hunting ducks with an assault rifle. Gun nuts aren't hunters, they are fetishists. They don't fantasize about bringing down an eight point buck with that Glock, they are dreaming about shoot an imaginary black man. It's sick.


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
Click to expand...


So you're a criminal waiting to happen?


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in
Click to expand...


malls - up to the owner of the mall

churches - up to the church

schools - we shouldn't have government schools, and in private schools it should be up to the school.  But inside the building is one thing and on public ground is another.  The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you

bars - should be up to the owner of the bar

and other public places except by law enforcement officials - LOL, you say "public" places, then mostly listed private property

but I defer to the experts on this matter  those that are invested in keeping the public safe - The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you.  And you don't "defer" to anyone but politicians, liberal ones who want to remove our rights.  You "defer" to people who agree with you


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed.  I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either
Click to expand...


You didn't shoot anyone?  Really?  But guns emanate evil!


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
Click to expand...


Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.

You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For every situation in which a gun-toting civilian stops or prevents a crime there are a thousand cases of tragic family suicide and accidental manslaughter by gun. Guns don't prevent crimes, they cause them. No other advanced democracy has our gun ownership numbers or our gun homicide numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
> 
> You are full-of-shit---
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not just his opinion.....there are studies to back that up, but I see you can't handle facts.
> 
> Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
> For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
> justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides,
> and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
> http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf
Click to expand...


Yes, liberals masturbate constantly over your ideology, you need to learn to control your clitoris.  At least in public


----------



## kaz

Rustic said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like cars were created for the sole purpose of killing people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dream on... Hope and change. Lol
Click to expand...


She's hoping for enough change to buy a dildo so she can stroke her clitoris with fish brains


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dream on... Hope and change. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to "Make America Hate again"......I'll stick to the hope and change.......it is a lot better than what Doofus GW Bush offered up.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is Obama's policy, hate


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but *their main purpose is to kill.  *
> 
> 
> 
> People pull the triggers, but *guns are designed to kill.* *Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.*
> 
> That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.
> 
> As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--*guns are designed for no other purpose.*
> 
> *Guns are made to kill.* And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. *Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.*
> 
> Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
> Guns are made to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they  are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> _In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. *In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. *And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year._
> 
> The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
> 
> But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting?  The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period,* the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.*
> Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?  This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal._
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> The gun is a killing device. That central fact should not be blurred by discussion of the use of guns to defend against criminals or to deter criminal attacks because the reason that guns can be used in these ways is that guns have the power to kill. Bank robbers and policmen carry guns for the same reason: they give the person with the gun the power to kill. The goals of the robber and the cops are very different but their use of the gun is the same.
> 
> The black powder muzzle loader and the double-barreled shotgun are designed to kill animals, not people. They used to be far more common in family arsenals than revolvers and automatic pistols which are designed to kill people. Those long guns have dwindled into rarity status among today's gun nuts, whose taste runs almost exclusively to automatic weapons, the people-killers.
> 
> You can't get far hunting ducks with an assault rifle. Gun nuts aren't hunters, they are fetishists. They don't fantasize about bringing down an eight point buck with that Glock, they are dreaming about shoot an imaginary black man. It's sick.
Click to expand...


From the transsexual who doesn't want to engage in petty insults, but when you have that chance you pass .. over your clitoris ... over and over ...


----------



## Rustic

Mertex said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has a "right" to a car... Firearm ownership is right. Fuck nut. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, even for nuts like you....that's what we're trying to change.....moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dream on... Hope and change. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to "Make America Hate again"......I'll stick to the hope and change.......it is a lot better than what Doofus GW Bush offered up.
Click to expand...

If you haven't noticed the so called "hope" did not "change" shit... Lol


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link obviously points to an irresponsible gun owner. Those of us that are responsible would like to see those who's carelessness results in harm to others dealt with harshly.
> What you fail to grasp is that I didn't leave a loaded gun on the back seat of that lady's car and infringing my right to own and carry a firearm will not prevent another kid from shooting his mom. However it may prevent me from defending myself or others in my home or business.
> You bring up AR 15 as if you know something about guns.... Suppose you tell us what you know about the AR 15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
> Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?
> 
> When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?
> 
> If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?
> 
> If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?
> 
> You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.
Click to expand...

I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.


----------



## Ernie S.

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
Click to expand...

So more gun free zones where people are prohibited from defending themselves is your answer? While I don't much care for drunks with guns, I am ALWAYS armed at my bar, thank God, else I more than likely wouldn't be here.

But you'll defer to the experts... It's already been established that you are WAY below expert level in any conversation about firearms. Perhaps you should defer to sentient beings.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mertex said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you would never know if a person was carrying concealed.  I have carried in all those places and no one ever knew and shockingly I didn't shoot anyone either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in other words, you are admitting that you have broken the law.  Are you one of those who considers themselves a "responsible" gun owner just because you haven't been caught breaking the law?
Click to expand...


It's not illegal to carry in my state and I have a concealed carry permit.

The point is that you would never know who is carrying in fact there are people carrying concealed everywhere you go.  Knowing that now how many of those criminal in waiting gun owners have drawn down and started blasting away?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mertex said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Sorry man, who do you want to murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to murder anyone........but you're comparing cars to guns....cars weren't manufactured for the sole purpose of killing people....guns are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but *their main purpose is to kill.  *
> 
> 
> 
> People pull the triggers, but *guns are designed to kill.* *Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.*
> 
> That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.
> 
> As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--*guns are designed for no other purpose.*
> 
> *Guns are made to kill.* And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. *Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.*
> 
> Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
> Guns are made to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they  are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> _In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. *In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. *And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year._
> 
> The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
> 
> But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting?  The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period,* the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.*
> Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?  This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?
Click to expand...


Funny my guns have never killed anyone either I must be using them wrong or they are defective


----------



## Skull Pilot

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So more gun free zones where people are prohibited from defending themselves is your answer? While I don't much care for drunks with guns, I am ALWAYS armed at my bar, thank God, else I more than likely wouldn't be here.
> 
> But you'll defer to the experts... It's already been established that you are WAY below expert level in any conversation about firearms. Perhaps you should defer to sentient beings.
Click to expand...


In my state I can lose my carry permit if I am drinking while armed so if I am carrying I do not drink


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
Click to expand...


I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not.  They are manufactured for the main purpose of shooting projectiles...usually at targets....or having the ability to do so if need be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha.....they may be used for shooting projectiles, targets or what have you, but *their main purpose is to kill.  *
> 
> 
> 
> People pull the triggers, but *guns are designed to kill.* *Guns are engineered, tested, and refined to kill--rapidly, efficiently and without malfunction.*
> 
> That is what the technology is designed to do. Period.
> 
> As philosopher Evan Selinger put it in the Atlantic after the Colorado shooting, thinking of guns as value-neutral has consequences. Unlike other pieces of technology that sometimes become instruments to kill people--such as cars, say, or knives--*guns are designed for no other purpose.*
> 
> *Guns are made to kill.* And we've allowed them to be treated as mere consumer items, or as recreational gizmos. They're not. *Automatic weapons in particular are designed to kill many people at once.*
> 
> Given the damage they can do, they should require licensing as heavy as those for someone driving a backhoe or a train. They are a serious technology that now fill private arsenals all over the country, and we know very little about who has them--and why.
> Guns are made to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they  are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> _In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. *In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. *And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year._
> 
> The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
> 
> But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting?  The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period,* the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.*
> Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and, believe it or not, many gun collectors have guns that are never used.  They are simply bought and held...like bottles of fine wine, or vintage cars, in hopes that their value will increase over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?  This is supposed to justify that we don't need better gun control laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals. Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening. Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal._
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> The gun is a killing device. That central fact should not be blurred by discussion of the use of guns to defend against criminals or to deter criminal attacks because the reason that guns can be used in these ways is that guns have the power to kill. Bank robbers and policmen carry guns for the same reason: they give the person with the gun the power to kill. The goals of the robber and the cops are very different but their use of the gun is the same.
> 
> The black powder muzzle loader and the double-barreled shotgun are designed to kill animals, not people. They used to be far more common in family arsenals than revolvers and automatic pistols which are designed to kill people. Those long guns have dwindled into rarity status among today's gun nuts, whose taste runs almost exclusively to automatic weapons, the people-killers.
> 
> You can't get far hunting ducks with an assault rifle. Gun nuts aren't hunters, they are fetishists. They don't fantasize about bringing down an eight point buck with that Glock, they are dreaming about shoot an imaginary black man. It's sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the transsexual who doesn't want to engage in petty insults, but when you have that chance you pass .. over your clitoris ... over and over ...
Click to expand...

Smutty rage over any discussion of gun violence is, of course, to be expected. The delightful novelty in this thread is this sputtering hysteria over a clitoris metaphor.

Metaphor is apparently beyond the cognitive grasp of our pistol kissers. Like a high school teacher in an English class of low-achievers, one wants to get the kids to see that the metaphor is contained in the words "body politic of the conservative movement."  The body politic isn't a real body so its clitoris isn't a real clitoris. The sentence says the clitoris of the body politic is a handgun and the question for the class is, how is a human clitoris like handgun in conservative thinking? Alas, one might as well try to explain Sunday to a cow as try to get these  raging, foul-mouthed kids to think so abstractly. 

It was interesting to see that the word "clitoris" immediately provoked outraged giggles about masturbation because this association suggests a rather limited understanding of women. No surprise there: the war on women and war on guns rage inside the same skulls. We are talking about limiited and immature male experience in both cases. The attitude is common among teenage boys; finding it among middle-aged guys with thousands of dollars worth of killing tools stored in the closet is a good deal harder to accept with equanimity. Still, it is funny in a sad sort of way.


----------



## Flash

Fishlore said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are used by law abiding people for protection and defense against criminals.  Often the presence of a gun in the hands of the intended victim keeps the crime from happening.  Often, the gun is used to rid the earth of a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the NRA would have you believe....but statistics show that they end up being used more for killing innocent people accidentally or not, than they  are used to actually defend someone.
> 
> _In 2010, across the nation there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) That same year, there were 8,275 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. *In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. *And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year._
> 
> The FBI definition of justifiable homicide is the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
> 
> But what about non-lethal use of guns? The kind the NRA is touting?  The same VPC paper finds that over a five-year period,* the actual incidence of people using guns in self-defense is actually 235,700, amounting to less than 1% of crimes being stopped by civilian gun use.*
> Guns for Self-Defense: Myth Versus Reality
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you are afraid of shooting yourself with your own gun then don't buy one.  Problem solved.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...the problem with "responsible gun owners" is that they're not criminals until they get angry......and then they pull their gun out and kill someone.  I'm sure that person (in my link) felt she was responsible.  Here's another example for you.....and this is supposed to be a "Christian"....how responsible is that?  I guess having a permit to a concealed gun allows you to shoot someone....in church....because they're in the wrong seat!  And, he's only being charged with manslaughter?  So much for responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Seat dispute leads to deadly shooting at Pennsylvania church
> 
> 
> As for the AR-15....it happened to be the gun used by Adam Lanza in Newtown, Conn.  He killed 20 first graders (and some others) each shot more than once....some as many as 11 times (what the military wanted out of this gun...the ability to kill even without good aim).  It is a weapon with high capacity ammunition magazines that can "Spray" bullets within close to medium range.  That is all I need to know - that if you plan to kill a lot of people in quick manner - then that's the one you should get.  I don't believe I'll ever have a need for such.  But, having any kind of gun makes even a supposed "responsible" gun owner feel like a real macho man, that he can just shoot someone because they sit in the wrong seat in church!
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
> Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?
> 
> When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?
> 
> If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?
> 
> If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?
> 
> You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.
Click to expand...

The OP asked, "liberals, what's your plan?" Nothing in my plan suggested "one more"; In fact, my plan was presented as the only law needed. Your knee-jerk reaction to any proposal to limit guns dims your reading comprehension. 

Your rather simplistic statemen "criminals, definition, don't obey laws" is a pathetically false burst of amateur criminology. Criminals obey lots of laws most of the time and even the laws they deliberately violate are broken only a small part of the time. You understanding of the nature and frequency of criminal violation is absurd. This is too bad because the key concept of deterrence is clearly beyond you and informed discussion of the socio-dynamics of gun legislation beyond your ken. Too bad.

That you cannot express even the simplest concept without attempting to give it weight by tacking on a personal insult ("Fish face") is a clue to one of the causes of your limited ability. You can't think without feeling and when guns are involved, you are so emotionally threatened that you can't think at all.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in malls, churches, schools, bars and other public places except by law enforcement officials, but I defer to the experts on this matter, those that are invested in keeping the public safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So more gun free zones where people are prohibited from defending themselves is your answer? While I don't much care for drunks with guns, I am ALWAYS armed at my bar, thank God, else I more than likely wouldn't be here.
> 
> But you'll defer to the experts... It's already been established that you are WAY below expert level in any conversation about firearms. Perhaps you should defer to sentient beings.
Click to expand...


Mertex is a blue State city snob who doesn't know anything about living in the real America, she just looks down on it and thinks she knows everything


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> 
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
Click to expand...


Yes, I owned guns since I was a kid, grew up outside Kalamazoo (hence "kaz"), Michigan.  I've never shot anyone.  We must not be using them right


----------



## Fishlore

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> 
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
Click to expand...

Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!

Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim  good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.

Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."

You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> 
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
> Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?
> 
> When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?
> 
> If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?
> 
> If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?
> 
> You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP asked, "liberals, what's your plan?" Nothing in my plan suggested "one more"; In fact, my plan was presented as the only law needed. Your knee-jerk reaction to any proposal to limit guns dims your reading comprehension.
> 
> Your rather simplistic statemen "criminals, definition, don't obey laws" is a pathetically false burst of amateur criminology. Criminals obey lots of laws most of the time and even the laws they deliberately violate are broken only a small part of the time. You understanding of the nature and frequency of criminal violation is absurd. This is too bad because the key concept of deterrence is clearly beyond you and informed discussion of the socio-dynamics of gun legislation beyond your ken. Too bad.
> 
> That you cannot express even the simplest concept without attempting to give it weight by tacking on a personal insult ("Fish face") is a clue to one of the causes of your limited ability. You can't think without feeling and when guns are involved, you are so emotionally threatened that you can't think at all.
Click to expand...


You had a chance to have a discussion without insults and you passed.  Maybe you should work on yourself before you lecture others.

As for criminals not being willing to follow laws, Ernie is right, the laws are based on that ridiculous premise:

1)  We have 310 million guns in this country

2)  We have open borders which flood drugs into this country

3)  And guns

4)  And there is no punishment for criminals to try to buy an illegal gun

So you explain how we are going to stop criminals from buying guns unless criminals decide they won't break the law to do it


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!
> 
> Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim  good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.
> 
> Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."
> 
> You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Again with the insults, LOL.  As for that Ernie not having killed anyone "yet," think he's a sleeper agent for the Russians or for KAOS?  Where have you gone, Maxwell Smart!

And again, your sick view that guns are dildos, if you want to stroke your vagina with your piece, you go right ahead.  But real life gun owners think you're sick


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an emotional ignoramus. Yup ONE gun owner shot someone over a silly argument in church and THAT is your focus. What if I told you that I could cut gun homicides in half in 2 years? Would that interest you?
> 
> 
> 
> No topic on the Internet generates a flood of insult and invective as does that of gun control. *The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic*.  The personal attacks which form the center of pro-gun postings make you wonder if these aren't the *last* people in America who should be allowed access to firearms. The gun nut posters mostly rave but they also enable those who are responsible for the deaths of more Americans every year than died in 9/11. I read their childish potty-mouthed arguments for their interpretation of the Second Amendment and I wonder if they aren't some of the best evidence the gun grabbers can point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of big words and handsome prose to say nothing of substance.
> Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally. To think one more is going to matter is inane.
> The problem is not guns. if it were, the bodies would be stacked 10 deep. The problem is people with no respect for others, their property or the law of the land. You cannot legislate morality or ethics. Bad people will do bad things. Guns will just sit there until someone decides to take what isn't theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Not one single (of thousands of) gun control law has been effective in keeping guns from people who are predisposed to use them illegally.*
> Thousands of gun laws, seriously, dude? Are you including gun laws in Japan, Britain and Mexico or just Dogpatch?
> 
> When you say such laws haven't been "effective in keeping guns from people wo are predisposed to use them illegally" are you asserting that the laws haven't been 100% perfect, i.e. that some illegal users have managed to circumvent them, or are you saying that the laws have had no effect at all?
> 
> If the laws have had some effect, how did you calculate the number or percent of ill-disposed folks prevented from acquiring a gun?
> 
> If you claim the laws have had no effect, would that mean that repealing all limitations and requirements would not raise the illegal use rate?
> 
> You think I have posted nothing of substance. It's your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. What you seem to be saying is that even though existing gun laws haven't made any significant impact on the murder rate, one more ought to do the trick. Your vocabulary is awesome, Fish face, but your logic is nonexistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The OP asked, "liberals, what's your plan?" Nothing in my plan suggested "one more"; In fact, my plan was presented as the only law needed. Your knee-jerk reaction to any proposal to limit guns dims your reading comprehension.
> 
> Your rather simplistic statemen "criminals, definition, don't obey laws" is a pathetically false burst of amateur criminology. Criminals obey lots of laws most of the time and even the laws they deliberately violate are broken only a small part of the time. You understanding of the nature and frequency of criminal violation is absurd. This is too bad because the key concept of deterrence is clearly beyond you and informed discussion of the socio-dynamics of gun legislation beyond your ken. Too bad.
> 
> That you cannot express even the simplest concept without attempting to give it weight by tacking on a personal insult ("Fish face") is a clue to one of the causes of your limited ability. You can't think without feeling and when guns are involved, you are so emotionally threatened that you can't think at all.
Click to expand...

Many words; says nothing.


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!
> 
> Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim  good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.
> 
> Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."
> 
> You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with the insults, LOL.  As for that Ernie not having killed anyone "yet," think he's a sleeper agent for the Russians or for KAOS?  Where have you gone, Maxwell Smart!
> 
> And again, your sick view that guns are dildos, if you want to stroke your vagina with your piece, you go right ahead.  But real life gun owners think you're sick
Click to expand...

Much as I might feel obligate to point out to our self-declared spokesman for "real-life gun owners" that a clitoris is not a dildo, I'm afraid I need to turn my attention to more serious issues. The guy is a riot though and I sincerely hope that no sharp edge on his handgun punches a hole in his blow-up date.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Many words; says nothing.



Fewer words; says even less.


----------



## Fishlore

Fewer words; says even less.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Fishlore said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!
> 
> Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim  good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.
> 
> Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."
> 
> You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.
Click to expand...


OK So they are either criminals in waiting or they aren't criminals at all make up your mind.

And if having guns available is dangerous then how come the vast majority of LEGAL gun owners never commit crimes or kill anyone?

You people like attribute the behavior of an extreme minority ( most of them already criminals and not merely waiting to be criminals) to every gun owner.

And who are exactly folks like me?

Do you mean men who are law abiding responsible contributing members of their community that just happen to own guns?
Because that's the kind of folks most of us are


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!
> 
> Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim  good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.
> 
> Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."
> 
> You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with the insults, LOL.  As for that Ernie not having killed anyone "yet," think he's a sleeper agent for the Russians or for KAOS?  Where have you gone, Maxwell Smart!
> 
> And again, your sick view that guns are dildos, if you want to stroke your vagina with your piece, you go right ahead.  But real life gun owners think you're sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much as I might feel obligate to point out to our self-declared spokesman for "real-life gun owners" that a clitoris is not a dildo, I'm afraid I need to turn my attention to more serious issues. The guy is a riot though and I sincerely hope that no sharp edge on his handgun punches a hole in his blow-up date.
Click to expand...


So when you say gun owners have a clitoris, that's OK, when I say they don't, then that's not, I'm taking on speaking for gun owners.  Actually, we're both discussing our experiences.  Your experience is mindless bigotry without knowing any actual gun owner, and mine is a lifetime owning guns and being around gun owners.  Obviously you know better


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa, calm down. It's an Internet discussion, no reason to lose it like that.  Let me know when your homicidal rant is under control.
> 
> You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I guess I'm not a very good "criminal in waiting" since I've owned guns since I was 16 and haven't committed a crime or killed anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kudos for the silliest post in this thread so far. Criminals in waiting don't kill people because they are waiting to kill people. It's tautological, so the fact that you haven't killed anyone (yet) shows that IF you are, in fact, a criminal in waiting, you are a good one because you are still waiting. Congratulaions!
> 
> Of course, most pistol kissing gun nuts aren't criminals and never kill anyone. The intense rejection of the idea that you are a criminal or a criminal in waiting comes from within your inner conflict and really has nothing to do with liberal plans (the OP topic) to prevent criminal gun violence. The compulsion to declaim  good citizenship is part of the "nut" in gun nut.
> 
> Your ludicrous logic about criminals in waiting harmonizes nicely with your absurd bit of scatological gynocology ("You're like a clitoris, you think ridiculous shit then stroke yourself until you cum all over the place"). When you grow up, you may find out some interesting facts: a clitoris doesn't think, when females masturbate, the clitoris doesn't stroke itself and it is boys, not girls that "cum all over the place."
> 
> You cannot separate guns from cum or shit. This is a deep psychological derangement that goes to the heart of the danger of having guns available in a society that has folks like you running around in it. Gun nuts are one of the best pieces of evidence for gun control. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK So they are either criminals in waiting or they aren't criminals at all make up your mind.
> 
> And if having guns available is dangerous then how come the vast majority of LEGAL gun owners never commit crimes or kill anyone?
> 
> You people like attribute the behavior of an extreme minority ( most of them already criminals and not merely waiting to be criminals) to every gun owner.
> 
> And who are exactly folks like me?
> 
> Do you mean men who are law abiding responsible contributing members of their community that just happen to own guns?
> Because that's the kind of folks most of us are
Click to expand...


And don't forget, cops should be the only ones with guns.  Not sure why the aura of evil guns emanate don't affect cops, but it's not like fish knew what he was talking about before either ...


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many words; says nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer words; says even less.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't say less


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you now remain wrong, fishfart:
> 
> What I MEANT to say is what I did say.  And, your brain is far too minuscule to grasp anything sufficiently to pass judgment on these or any other important matters.
> 
> The Second Amendment still exists.  The SCOTUS has even (fairly) recently reaffirmed that fact.
> 
> That a pinhead fishfucker like you may not like those facts really doesn't manage to change them.
> 
> 
> 
> The flatulent burst of childish name calling and personal criticism is unaccompanied by any evidence or analysis about anything. Like so many Internet trolls this poor laddie has nothing to offer but the spectacle of a poor chap consumed by his emotional demons. I feel sorry for him.
> 
> His worship of firearms coupled with his uncontrolled rage and inability to connect through verbal or written comminication is more than just pathetic; it is a common trait among our spree shooters, the Second Amendment enthusiasts who shoot up children in elementary schools, strangers is malls and movie theaters and a dozen other venues, including churches, distinctly American bursts of madness which splatter fair Columbia with human gore.
> 
> Not every gun nut is a mass murderer but most mass murderers are assuredly gun nuts. Remember that the next time you come across one of these incoherent spouts of hate and rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fishfart:
> 
> While you are busy doing the very thing you pretend to be above (which makes you an imbecile hypocrite which everyone sees quite clearly, you scum-sucking twat), let's get down to it, shall we, fuckhead?
> 
> YOU are the moron who suggested confiscation of guns.  I pointed out to you, you mental pygmy, that that isn't possible as long as we have a Second Amendment.
> 
> Since then, you have offered not one fucking thing to support your idiotic notion.
> 
> Now, it is true that I have engaged in name calling.  Not my fault you are a fish fuckface.  Deal with it, bitch.
> 
> But what is not true is that you have the foggiest notion of the implications of the stupidity you are "suggesting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sick little puppy. The idea of his gun collection would be alarming if he didn't live in some god forsaken shit hole thousands of miles from my well-guarded estate. There are hundred of these guys running around loose in God's Country. Cause for alarm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fishfucker:
> 
> You remain wrong.  No surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can see how hard you must have struggled to come up with this post. The creative effort needed to turn "Fishlore" into "Fishfucker"  has left you all sweaty and panting. The body of your argument is a testament to your rich background of knowledge, sharp analysis and deft argument. It may be the wisest thing you have ever put on the board. You keep thinking, it's what you are good at.
Click to expand...


And yet, fishfucker, you can't even handle that.  Your posts remain a void.  No intelligence.  No actual "argument."  No coherence.  A lot of your baseless self-congratulation, but no actual substance.

Have yourself a good cry.  But your pissant whining aside, you still have nothing meritorious to offer.  

Try again when you are willing to acknowledge that the Second Amendment is the thing that blocks you from your idiotic proposal and that schmucks like you have yet to even coherently begin a process of seeking to repeal the Second Amendment.

Your fail may not yet be complete.  But your self-exposure as an assclown remains endless.  Keep posting!


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly do try to make people insult you with ridiculous crap like that.  I'm glad you've decided to go without insults, LOL.  Yeah, read your posts.  The only ones who equate sex with guns are liberals.  It's as sick as Mertex who can't think of a single use of a projectile flying through the air except to kill a person.  You need psychiatric help if you equate guns with sex just like she does for her obsession with killing.  Guns are for killing as a LAST resort, and they aren't for sex at all.  Get a room
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I never expected that a gun nut would grasp the metaphor of the handgun as clitoris of the conservative body politic. You have to read books, especially the kind with no pictures, to understand that sort of remark. "Ridiculous crap" is the sort of response one expects from those fellows who are reflexively angered by what they don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go ahead and masturbate over your fucked analogies like that gun owners think of their guns in any way regarding sex all you want.  I've been a gun owner and around gun owners all my life and you are full - of - shit no matter how many liberal blogs you want to  read with your hand down your pants.  I know you're flat out wrong because I live it.
> 
> My posts have been pretty low key with insults, but you're a fucking idiot that you're obsessed with this bull shit.  We're taking about gun rights, the only one equating guns with sex is you and your vacuous liberal fuck buddies.
> 
> You're going there because you're losing on content.  So you're doing what you whined about, just being insulting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another semi-literate foaming in potty-mouthed rage at English prose above his comprehension level. Instant recourse in a blend of sexual and scatological attack is a trope of the low education, rural white resentment that is providing fuel for the kamikaze dive of the Republican Party.
> 
> This raging gunslinger knows he is "right" because he "has lived" the gun culture. Of course he hasn't the writing skills to explain any of that sweeping pontification, he just proclaims it with vulgar hostility. Poor guy.
> 
> His lack of skill extends also to reading comprehension above the elementary school level. The catalyst for his fecal rage is the metaphor "*The handgun seems to be the clitoris of the conservative body politic." * In his tantrum he confuses a metaphor with direct comparison. By his uneducated logic, someone who referred to bread as the staff of life would seem to be advocating a diet of sticks. Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a "potty mouth" by someone who can't discuss guns without talking about clits and penises is classic.  That actually made sense to you too, didn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't think my metaphor was derrogative of the human anatomy, nor, in fact, was it insulting to the "conservative body politic." The clitoris is a precious part of the body. We liberals strongly condemn the African conservatives who remove it surgically as a way of  controlling their daughters. You have never discussed the clitoris with a mature woman; you would be amazed to find that they don't think it dirty or disgusting.
> 
> You, on the other hand show the scars of your traumatic experiences in the anal phase. Your uncontrollable anger towards anyone who doesn't share your tin phallus worship associates immediately to your guilty disgust with the act of bowel elimination. You are a poor, confused little puppy despite all that compensatory fire power. You obviously can't control your insecurity, why should I believe you can control your gun?
Click to expand...


^ clearly a college sophomore.  Likely at a community college with a poor academic rating.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many words; says nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer words; says even less.
Click to expand...

The number of words and the number of syllables in those words is irrelevant. I can convey a thought in a few words, leaving even you with my opinion or my answer to your question.
You on the other hand, shit out a bunch of fancy sounding words and convey nothing other than confirmation that you lack the cognitive ability to have a conversation.
As you see, I am NOT intimidated by your vocabulary. I, however continue to be amused by your lack of substance and unwarranted narcissism.
There ya go, son My vocabulary and my literary skills are at least equal to yours and I actually said something.
You are dismissed.


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a criminal waiting to happen?
Click to expand...


Nice try, but I'm not the one here defending "guns" and I don't even own one.


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> malls - up to the owner of the mall
> 
> churches - up to the church
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree.  That was just my opinion, you asked where they should be allowed, remember?



> schools - we shouldn't have government schools, and in private schools it should be up to the school.  But inside the building is one thing and on public ground is another.  The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you



Not every American family can afford private schools for their kids, so I don't agree that we shouldn't have public schools.  That's just a conservative mentality that doesn't realize there are plenty of "Republican" families in that same situation, but I guess they don't care about them.  And, better security would have prevented some of those incidents.  Someone in the school other than law enforcement might have added to the confusion and killings.



> bars - should be up to the owner of the bar


Yeah, because we know that people drinking alcohol are able to maintain decorum, and having a gun would just make everyone in the bar safer......bwahahaha!



> and other public places except by law enforcement officials - LOL, you say "public" places, then mostly listed private property


The law can designate that private places not be allowed to have guns.  But certainly public places where crowds gather should not allow them.



> but I defer to the experts on this matter  those that are invested in keeping the public safe - The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims *might not agree with you*.


That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, but you have no proof that they wouldn't.  Most of the victim's families want more gun control.  

And you don't "defer" to anyone but politicians, liberal ones who want to remove our rights.  You "defer" to people who agree with you[/QUOTE]
Just because you may only listen to ones that side with your opinion does not mean that others do too.  Gun experts are not necessarily politicians, so enough of your ad hominem.....stick to what you do know.


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a criminal waiting to happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but I'm not the one here defending "guns" and I don't even own one.
Click to expand...


No kidding ...


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they say, let's pass a law, that will get rid of guns!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> malls - up to the owner of the mall
> 
> churches - up to the church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree.  That was just my opinion, you asked where they should be allowed, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schools - we shouldn't have government schools, and in private schools it should be up to the school.  But inside the building is one thing and on public ground is another.  The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not every American family can afford private schools for their kids, so I don't agree that we shouldn't have public schools.  That's just a conservative mentality that doesn't realize there are plenty of "Republican" families in that same situation, but I guess they don't care about them.  And, better security would have prevented some of those incidents.  Someone in the school other than law enforcement might have added to the confusion and killings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bars - should be up to the owner of the bar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, because we know that people drinking alcohol are able to maintain decorum, and having a gun would just make everyone in the bar safer......bwahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and other public places except by law enforcement officials - LOL, you say "public" places, then mostly listed private property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law can designate that private places not be allowed to have guns.  But certainly public places where crowds gather should not allow them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I defer to the experts on this matter  those that are invested in keeping the public safe - The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims *might not agree with you*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, but you have no proof that they wouldn't.  Most of the victim's families want more gun control.
> 
> And you don't "defer" to anyone but politicians, liberal ones who want to remove our rights.  You "defer" to people who agree with you
Click to expand...

Just because you may only listen to ones that side with your opinion does not mean that others do too.  Gun experts are not necessarily politicians, so enough of your ad hominem.....stick to what you do know.[/QUOTE]

LOL, self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a criminal waiting to happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but I'm not the one here defending "guns" and I don't even own one.
Click to expand...


So only people who own guns are "criminals in waiting" now?

Wow according to you then I've been a criminal in waiting since I was 16 and I'm still waiting to become a criminal.

I suppose I'll be waiting for a very long time perhaps I'll die without becoming a criminal


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a criminal waiting to happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but I'm not the one here defending "guns" and I don't even own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only people who own guns are "criminals in waiting" now?
> 
> Wow according to you then I've been a criminal in waiting since I was 16 and I'm still waiting to become a criminal.
> 
> I suppose I'll be waiting for a very long time perhaps I'll die without becoming a criminal
Click to expand...


Guns are evil, and she only wants government to have them ...


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is trying to *"get rid"* of guns.....are all conservatives that dumb that they interpret liberals as wanting to "get rid" of guns when all we want is better gun control to reduce gun violence....."common sense, gun safety laws"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where should guns be allowed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you think everywhere.  I certainly don't think they should be allowed in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> malls - up to the owner of the mall
> 
> churches - up to the church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree.  That was just my opinion, you asked where they should be allowed, remember?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schools - we shouldn't have government schools, and in private schools it should be up to the school.  But inside the building is one thing and on public ground is another.  The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims might not agree with you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not every American family can afford private schools for their kids, so I don't agree that we shouldn't have public schools.  That's just a conservative mentality that doesn't realize there are plenty of "Republican" families in that same situation, but I guess they don't care about them.  And, better security would have prevented some of those incidents.  Someone in the school other than law enforcement might have added to the confusion and killings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bars - should be up to the owner of the bar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, because we know that people drinking alcohol are able to maintain decorum, and having a gun would just make everyone in the bar safer......bwahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and other public places except by law enforcement officials - LOL, you say "public" places, then mostly listed private property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law can designate that private places not be allowed to have guns.  But certainly public places where crowds gather should not allow them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I defer to the experts on this matter  those that are invested in keeping the public safe - The people in Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Oregon community college and other dead defenseless victims *might not agree with you*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, but you have no proof that they wouldn't.  Most of the victim's families want more gun control.
> 
> And you don't "defer" to anyone but politicians, liberal ones who want to remove our rights.  You "defer" to people who agree with you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you may only listen to ones that side with your opinion does not mean that others do too.  Gun experts are not necessarily politicians, so enough of your ad hominem.....stick to what you do know.
Click to expand...


LOL, self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?[/QUOTE]

You don't know me at all to make a comment that I don't defer to anyone but politicians.....only a person with a very narrow mind and who does that themselves would assign that attitude to someone they don't know.  My calling you out on it is not hypocrisy.  I would never say that about anyone I don't know just because they are on opposite side of an issue.   But, if you have nothing to offer, I guess name-calling and insults are your only recourse.  You're no different than most conservatives here.....they immediately go to name calling because most of them are just too shallow.


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know me at all to make a comment that I don't defer to anyone but politicians.....only a person with a very narrow mind and who does that themselves would assign that attitude to someone they don't know.  My calling you out on it is not hypocrisy.  I would never say that about anyone I don't know just because they are on opposite side of an issue.   But, if you have nothing to offer, I guess name-calling and insults are your only recourse.  You're no different than most conservatives here.....they immediately go to name calling because most of them are just too shallow.
Click to expand...


With all the shit you say about guns and gun owners?  Self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many words; says nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer words; says even less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number of words and the number of syllables in those words is irrelevant. I can convey a thought in a few words, leaving even you with my opinion or my answer to your question.
> You on the other hand, shit out a bunch of fancy sounding words and convey nothing other than confirmation that you lack the cognitive ability to have a conversation.
> As you see, I am NOT intimidated by your vocabulary. I, however continue to be amused by your lack of substance and unwarranted narcissism.
> There ya go, son My vocabulary and my literary skills are at least equal to yours and I actually said something.
> You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

From Alabama? Seriously, Dude? ROTFL


----------



## Mertex

kaz said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know me at all to make a comment that I don't defer to anyone but politicians.....only a person with a very narrow mind and who does that themselves would assign that attitude to someone they don't know.  My calling you out on it is not hypocrisy.  I would never say that about anyone I don't know just because they are on opposite side of an issue.   But, if you have nothing to offer, I guess name-calling and insults are your only recourse.  You're no different than most conservatives here.....they immediately go to name calling because most of them are just too shallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all the shit you say about guns and gun owners?  Self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
Click to expand...



What exactly have I said about gun owners?  Go ahead.....link?


----------



## kaz

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know me at all to make a comment that I don't defer to anyone but politicians.....only a person with a very narrow mind and who does that themselves would assign that attitude to someone they don't know.  My calling you out on it is not hypocrisy.  I would never say that about anyone I don't know just because they are on opposite side of an issue.   But, if you have nothing to offer, I guess name-calling and insults are your only recourse.  You're no different than most conservatives here.....they immediately go to name calling because most of them are just too shallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all the shit you say about guns and gun owners?  Self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have I said about gun owners?  Go ahead.....link?
Click to expand...


Please, we're gun nuts who are just an unintended insult away from going on a shooting rampage.  Your portrayal is ridiculous.  You're worried about us, not criminals with guns


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a criminal waiting to happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but I'm not the one here defending "guns" and I don't even own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only people who own guns are "criminals in waiting" now?
> 
> Wow according to you then I've been a criminal in waiting since I was 16 and I'm still waiting to become a criminal.
> 
> I suppose I'll be waiting for a very long time perhaps I'll die without becoming a criminal
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm a criminal in waiting now for 38 years and counting.  Just waiting for the right moment, then bam!  Literally.  I'm thinking the next waitress who brings me cold soup ...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mertex said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know me at all to make a comment that I don't defer to anyone but politicians.....only a person with a very narrow mind and who does that themselves would assign that attitude to someone they don't know.  My calling you out on it is not hypocrisy.  I would never say that about anyone I don't know just because they are on opposite side of an issue.   But, if you have nothing to offer, I guess name-calling and insults are your only recourse.  You're no different than most conservatives here.....they immediately go to name calling because most of them are just too shallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all the shit you say about guns and gun owners?  Self awareness of your own hypocrisy just isn't part of your world, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly have I said about gun owners?  Go ahead.....link?
Click to expand...


You don't remember this?

_"That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen."_


----------



## Tom Horn

A thread that began in 2013....impressive!


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just honest citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem.....many consider themselves honest citizens and they're just criminals waiting to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a criminal waiting to happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but I'm not the one here defending "guns" and I don't even own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So only people who own guns are "criminals in waiting" now?
> 
> Wow according to you then I've been a criminal in waiting since I was 16 and I'm still waiting to become a criminal.
> 
> I suppose I'll be waiting for a very long time perhaps I'll die without becoming a criminal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm a criminal in waiting now for 38 years and counting.  Just waiting for the right moment, then bam!  Literally.  I'm thinking the next waitress who brings me cold soup ...
Click to expand...

55 years and counting. I stay away from Bernie Sanders events.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many words; says nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer words; says even less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The number of words and the number of syllables in those words is irrelevant. I can convey a thought in a few words, leaving even you with my opinion or my answer to your question.
> You on the other hand, shit out a bunch of fancy sounding words and convey nothing other than confirmation that you lack the cognitive ability to have a conversation.
> As you see, I am NOT intimidated by your vocabulary. I, however continue to be amused by your lack of substance and unwarranted narcissism.
> There ya go, son My vocabulary and my literary skills are at least equal to yours and I actually said something.
> You are dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From Alabama? Seriously, Dude? ROTFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I LIVE in Alabama asshole; I'm not necessarily FROM Alabama, but thanks for stereotyping me, faggot.
> 
> You see, a Liberal who hates firearms must be a homosexual. See how that works, idiot?
Click to expand...


Don't you love the left saying they're against bigotry?


----------



## Fishlore

*Connecticut State Legislature Passes Gun Control Bill Aimed at Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence*

Victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will receive additional protections with the passing of a bill aimed at prohibiting those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms, thus eliminating a critical window of time during which a victim’s life could be at risk. The bill heads to the governor’s desk in the coming days for his signature before it becomes state law.

Bill Requires Those With a Temporary Restraining Order to Turn in Gun

Kiss that "gun culture" good bye in the Nutmeg State


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> *Connecticut State Legislature Passes Gun Control Bill Aimed at Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence*
> 
> Victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will receive additional protections with the passing of a bill aimed at prohibiting those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms, thus eliminating a critical window of time during which a victim’s life could be at risk. The bill heads to the governor’s desk in the coming days for his signature before it becomes state law.
> 
> Bill Requires Those With a Temporary Restraining Order to Turn in Gun
> 
> Kiss that "gun culture" good bye in the Nutmeg State



Did you know murder and assault are illegal?  Liberals never grasp that someone would buy an illegal gun to commit another crime.  Boggles the mind.  You still fall for the pull my finger gag, don't you?


----------



## Fishlore

*Fired employee kills co-worker, self at Texas company*

A man dismissed last month from a Houston-area transportation company opened fire inside the facility on Wednesday, fatally shooting a former co-worker and injuring two others before turning the gun on himself, saying his life had been ruined, sheriff’s officials said.

The man was armed with a shotgun and a pistol when he arrived at the Knight Transportation office in Katy, about 20 miles west of Houston, according to Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...ion-company/iS2nt3OBRELLMZwRty6UtM/story.html


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> *Fired employee kills co-worker, self at Texas company*
> 
> A man dismissed last month from a Houston-area transportation company opened fire inside the facility on Wednesday, fatally shooting a former co-worker and injuring two others before turning the gun on himself, saying his life had been ruined, sheriff’s officials said.
> 
> The man was armed with a shotgun and a pistol when he arrived at the Knight Transportation office in Katy, about 20 miles west of Houston, according to Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman.
> 
> 1 dead when ex-worker opens fire at Texas company before killing self - The Boston Globe



Which is more likely to work

1)  We keep the 310 million guns in the country away from the guy as well as the guns that can come across our southern border you fight to keep open as well as prevent him from thinking of any other way to kill people so he gives up and goes home and everyone lives happily ever after

2)  Someone blows his sorry ass away


----------



## Fishlore

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job. 

There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".



You think that guns can freely cross our southern border with drugs and criminals can buy guns from their drug dealers is "imaginary" and a "deflection?"  Seriously?  You don't get that connection?

Question, are kids are getting imaginary drugs in high school across the open southern border or the real thing?


----------



## Fishlore

The number of crime guns imported from abroad is miniscule. Most crime guns are manufactured here in God's Country and sold, often by crooked licensed dealers across state lines. The states exporting the greatest number of crime guns are Georgia, West Virginia, Alaska and Mississippi. These guns are not imported. The few foreign guns which are involved in crimes were legally imported and entered the retail market through the normal, legal channels. Every gun starts out as a legal gun no matter where it is manufactured.

SOURCE: Where guns used in crimes come from

Of course blaming gun crimes on Mexicans is a nice twofer even it it isn't true.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> *Connecticut State Legislature Passes Gun Control Bill Aimed at Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence*
> 
> Victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will receive additional protections with the passing of a bill aimed at prohibiting those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms, thus eliminating a critical window of time during which a victim’s life could be at risk. The bill heads to the governor’s desk in the coming days for his signature before it becomes state law.
> 
> Bill Requires Those With a Temporary Restraining Order to Turn in Gun
> 
> Kiss that "gun culture" good bye in the Nutmeg State


THAT would be an interesting SCOTUS case. Someone not judged insane or convicted of a crime being denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right...
Well, THAT is another reason I left the state of my birth.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".


What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
Click to expand...

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Connecticut State Legislature Passes Gun Control Bill Aimed at Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence*
> 
> Victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will receive additional protections with the passing of a bill aimed at prohibiting those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms, thus eliminating a critical window of time during which a victim’s life could be at risk. The bill heads to the governor’s desk in the coming days for his signature before it becomes state law.
> 
> Bill Requires Those With a Temporary Restraining Order to Turn in Gun
> 
> Kiss that "gun culture" good bye in the Nutmeg State
> 
> 
> 
> THAT would be an interesting SCOTUS case. Someone not judged insane or convicted of a crime being denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right...
> Well, THAT is another reason I left the state of my birth.
Click to expand...

The state's interest in public safety is a factor in laws restricting gun possession, a factor explicity cited in SCOTUS ruling. A domestic TRO is not simply issued automatically. It is a warrant signed by a judge, a ruling based on evidence. The evidence may be sworn testimony of the spouse. It frequently includes one or more police reports of response to a domestic incident call. The object of the TRO has the right to appear before the judge and offer opposing testimony, although the TRO does not require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal conviction.

Down in the Yellowhammer State, beating up the old lady is a popular indoor sport. In 2015 
336 domestic violence victims (149 children and 187 adults) found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing provided by local domestic violence programs. 284 adults and children received non-residential assistance and services, including counseling, legal advocacy, and children’s support groups. And BTW presence of a gun in the home increases the chance of a domestic violence homicide by 500%

No wondery you love it down there.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> The number of crime guns imported from abroad is miniscule. Most crime guns are manufactured here in God's Country and sold, often by crooked licensed dealers across state lines. The states exporting the greatest number of crime guns are Georgia, West Virginia, Alaska and Mississippi. These guns are not imported. The few foreign guns which are involved in crimes were legally imported and entered the retail market through the normal, legal channels. Every gun starts out as a legal gun no matter where it is manufactured.
> 
> SOURCE: Where guns used in crimes come from
> 
> Of course blaming gun crimes on Mexicans is a nice twofer even it it isn't true.



Strawman, I didn't blame guns on Mexicans, I said the open border is one of the things you'd have to close.  I mean duh


----------



## Fishlore

Oh, yeah, right. Where I live you can scale your hat over the border to Canada so I understand that you weren't necessarily thinking that the illegal guns pouring over our "open border" were coming from Mexico.  

The flood of illegal guns entering the USA from New Brunswick is a shocking scandal. Those French Cartels have no mercy. We get halberds, muskets, the occasional blunderbus, even Gatling guns! Why just last week authorities nabbed three _voyageurs_ trying to sneak in a British-made brass twelve pounder. We need more alert gun culture experts like you to awaken sleeping Americans to the _real_ cross-border threat. Be on your guard!
_Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!_


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Oh, yeah, right. Where I live you can scale your hat over the border to Canada so I understand that you weren't necessarily thinking that the illegal guns pouring over our "open border" were coming from Mexico.
> 
> The flood of illegal guns entering the USA from New Brunswick is a shocking scandal. Those French Cartels have no mercy. We get halberds, muskets, the occasional blunderbus, even Gatling guns! Why just last week authorities nabbed three _voyageurs_ trying to sneak in a British-made brass twelve pounder. We need more alert gun culture experts like you to awaken sleeping Americans to the _real_ cross-border threat. Be on your guard!
> _Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
> Il sait porter la croix!_



You are a bizarre person.  You read the words in my post, but then you string them together into bizarre meanings.  Just a couple:

I said the southern border.  But the southern border isn't just open to Mexicans, it's open to anyone going through Mexico.  Mean duh, that has to be explained to you?

I know I said a couple and I meant one, but you bored me so much my head just hit the desk


----------



## Clementine

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.




Every single lib idea would immediately affect every law abiding citizen. Would be a decade or longer before they could even begin to start catching criminals.

Meanwhile, the majority of people would be in more danger than ever and less able to defend themselves.    

If thugs invade your home, the left prefers that you call 911 and wait for help.   Could be a while, depending on where you live.    If they don't make it in time, which they likely won't, it sure sucks for your family.    Even if police arrive quickly, criminals with guns are already in your home and can take you hostage.    In other words, without the ability to defend yourself, you are fucked.   And the left does not care one iota about that.   The wealthy liberal politicians who would pass such laws will still have their armed security and, as long as they are safe, they don't give a fuck about anyone else.


----------



## Centinel

Fishlore said:


> The flood of illegal guns entering the USA from New Brunswick is a shocking scandal. Those French Cartels have no mercy. We get halberds, muskets, the occasional blunderbus, even Gatling guns! Why just last week authorities nabbed three _voyageurs_ trying to sneak in a British-made brass twelve pounder. We need more alert gun culture experts like you to awaken sleeping Americans to the _real_ cross-border threat. Be on your guard!
> _Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
> Il sait porter la croix!_



Possessing a gun harms nobody. Criminalizing the possession of a gun is absurd, as no harm has been committed, so there should be no crime.


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## Fishlore

Centinel said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood of illegal guns entering the USA from New Brunswick is a shocking scandal. Those French Cartels have no mercy. We get halberds, muskets, the occasional blunderbus, even Gatling guns! Why just last week authorities nabbed three _voyageurs_ trying to sneak in a British-made brass twelve pounder. We need more alert gun culture experts like you to awaken sleeping Americans to the _real_ cross-border threat. Be on your guard!
> _Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
> Il sait porter la croix!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possessing a gun harms nobody. Criminalizing the possession of a gun is absurd, as no harm has been committed, so there should be no crime.
Click to expand...

An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.


----------



## Centinel

Fishlore said:


> An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.



Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.

I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.


----------



## Fishlore

Centinel said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.
Click to expand...


Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too
Click to expand...

Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious
Click to expand...


So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it.  Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.

The purpose of a gun and hammer are different.  A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun


----------



## Fishlore

kaz said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting legal approach... wouldn't the same reasoning apply to RPGs or atomic weapons? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it.  Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.
> 
> The purpose of a gun and hammer are different.  A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun
Click to expand...

A hammer may just about as good as a gun, and in some cases, better . Most cops go many years without discharging their weapons, a good indication that all these concealed carry guys with their fantasies of stopping crime and bagging bad guys are just dreaming.

One of the reasons cops fire so rarely is that their in-service training places heavy emphasis on when NOT to shoot, a concept that doesn't figure in the Lone Ranger fantasies of your average gun nut.  Gun nuts are all about shooting. From their posts on line they reveal how, if the ever got the chance, they would cheerfully return fire with some suspected bad guy (perhaps another gun nut?) in settings were cops are trained NOT to shoot. We would all be better off if the gun nuts carried a claw hammer in that holster instead of their beloved semi-autos.


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it.  Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.
> 
> The purpose of a gun and hammer are different.  A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A hammer may just about as good as a gun, and in some cases, better . Most cops go many years without discharging their weapons, a good indication that all these concealed carry guys with their fantasies of stopping crime and bagging bad guys are just dreaming.
> 
> One of the reasons cops fire so rarely is that their in-service training places heavy emphasis on when NOT to shoot, a concept that doesn't figure in the Lone Ranger fantasies of your average gun nut.  Gun nuts are all about shooting. From their posts on line they reveal how, if the ever got the chance, they would cheerfully return fire with some suspected bad guy (perhaps another gun nut?) in settings were cops are trained NOT to shoot. We would all be better off if the gun nuts carried a claw hammer in that holster instead of their beloved semi-autos.
Click to expand...


OK, we can set up a face off, you can have the hammer and I'll take the gun


----------



## NYcarbineer

1.  Close all background check loopholes

2.  Increase the penalties for providing a gun to someone not legall eligible to own a gun.

3.  Increase the penalties for possessing a gun illegally.

4.  Register the identity of all guns sold from this point.  Require all owners to account for the dispositions of any registered gun they acquire.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
Click to expand...

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
Click to expand...

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Connecticut State Legislature Passes Gun Control Bill Aimed at Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence*
> 
> Victims of domestic violence in Connecticut will receive additional protections with the passing of a bill aimed at prohibiting those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms, thus eliminating a critical window of time during which a victim’s life could be at risk. The bill heads to the governor’s desk in the coming days for his signature before it becomes state law.
> 
> Bill Requires Those With a Temporary Restraining Order to Turn in Gun
> 
> Kiss that "gun culture" good bye in the Nutmeg State
> 
> 
> 
> THAT would be an interesting SCOTUS case. Someone not judged insane or convicted of a crime being denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right...
> Well, THAT is another reason I left the state of my birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state's interest in public safety is a factor in laws restricting gun possession, a factor explicity cited in SCOTUS ruling. A domestic TRO is not simply issued automatically. It is a warrant signed by a judge, a ruling based on evidence. The evidence may be sworn testimony of the spouse. It frequently includes one or more police reports of response to a domestic incident call. The object of the TRO has the right to appear before the judge and offer opposing testimony, although the TRO does not require the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal conviction.
> 
> Down in the Yellowhammer State, beating up the old lady is a popular indoor sport. In 2015
> 336 domestic violence victims (149 children and 187 adults) found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing provided by local domestic violence programs. 284 adults and children received non-residential assistance and services, including counseling, legal advocacy, and children’s support groups. And BTW presence of a gun in the home increases the chance of a domestic violence homicide by 500%
> 
> No wondery you love it down there.
Click to expand...


www.dccadv.org
Domestic Violence in the District of Columbia 2015
Statistical Snapshot

34,966 domestic violence related calls were made to the Metropolitan Police Department in 2015, approximately 1 call every 15 minutes, representing a 6% increase over 2014 and a 
13% increase since 2012.

5,505 petitions for Civil Protection Orders were filed in court
in 2015, representing a 9% increase over 2014 and a 17% increase since 2012.

5,867 people sought help at the court’s Domestic Violence Intake Centers, which assist people in obtaining civil protection orders, safety planning and referrals for legal assistance, housing and social services.

27% of homeless families in DC reported a history of domestic violence in 2015 and 15.3% were currently homeless as a direct result of a violent incident.

On *one day* in 2015, 511 victims were served by local domestic violence service providers. 302 victims found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing, 209 victims received
support services such as counseling, legal advocacy and
children’s support groups.
Local domestic violence service providers received 43 requests by victims for services that they were unable to meet. 35% of these unmet requests were for housing.

336 in one year in Alabama vs 302 in ONE FUCKING DAY in the liberal Mecca of Washington DC, a city with the most restrictive gun laws in the country. 0.3% yes, zero point three percent as many Alabamians went to emergency shelters. Thank you for proving my point so eloquently.


----------



## SmokeALib

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
Click to expand...

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife. 
Dumass.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
Click to expand...

A rather unsubstantial reply there, doofus. Narcissism noted; rebuttal, absent.
At least I live in the real world. That in itself makes me imminently more qualified to speak on American policy than someone who has obviously been sheltered from reality his whole life.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Centinel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, depending upon the circumstances. As long as the weapon in question, if used, doesn't harm anyone other than the intended target. It would depend a great deal upon population densities.
> 
> I can't think of any location in which a nuclear weapon would be safe. An RPG, maybe some locations.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  Pretty much any round is capable of harming bystanders. A shotgun sprays any load other than a deer slug. Even an old-fashioned 30/06 round is capable of going straight through the "intended target" and killing some little kid fifty yards behind. Guns in public areas pose collateral damage problems, period. If we allow licensed carry in such places we are going to have to be willing to suffer such casualties. Allowing guns in places like bars, movie theaters, sports arenas is going kill innocent people. It just is. Maybe it is worth it. I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any hammer is capable of harming bystanders too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not unless the guy throwing the hammer is the Norse god, Thor. Suggesting that a hammer has the same potential for collateral damage as an assault-style rifle is pretty funny, even coming from a gun nut. Get serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your standard changes, now it's not just what it's capable of, it's what's more capable of doing it.  Never said it was the "same," you just pulled that out of the air.
> 
> The purpose of a gun and hammer are different.  A gun can also (and is far more likely to) be carried for defense while a hammer is useless for that purpose against a gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A hammer may just about as good as a gun, and in some cases, better . Most cops go many years without discharging their weapons, a good indication that all these concealed carry guys with their fantasies of stopping crime and bagging bad guys are just dreaming.
> 
> One of the reasons cops fire so rarely is that their in-service training places heavy emphasis on when NOT to shoot, a concept that doesn't figure in the Lone Ranger fantasies of your average gun nut.  Gun nuts are all about shooting. From their posts on line they reveal how, if the ever got the chance, they would cheerfully return fire with some suspected bad guy (perhaps another gun nut?) in settings were cops are trained NOT to shoot. We would all be better off if the gun nuts carried a claw hammer in that holster instead of their beloved semi-autos.
Click to expand...

I must be a gun nut. I'm all about shooting *at targets *and practicing drawing my weapon quickly.
If I was all about shooting people, I'd have at least 2 bodies I'd need to get rid of.
I have defended myself against 2 knife assaults over the years. The first time, all that was needed was to show the big assed revolver in my shoulder holster. The second required pressing the barrel of my .40 in a man's sternum.
I'm but one of 80 million gun owners. If I've successfully defended myself twice without firing a shot, how many others have done the same without becoming statistics?


----------



## Fishlore

SmokeALib said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
Click to expand...

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
Click to expand...

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> 1.  Close all background check loopholes
> 
> 2.  Increase the penalties for providing a gun to someone not legall eligible to own a gun.
> 
> 3.  Increase the penalties for possessing a gun illegally.
> 
> 4.  Register the identity of all guns sold from this point.  Require all owners to account for the dispositions of any registered gun they acquire.



And, without objection, the proposals pass.

See, that was easy...


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> 
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
_Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless


_Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
_Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
_Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
_David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
_Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.


----------



## SmokeALib

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
Click to expand...

All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
Click to expand...

Anyone who cites Kellerman goes on my ignore list. Kellerman's study was so flawed even he refuted it


----------



## Ernie S.

SmokeALib said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
> In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.
Click to expand...

He can call 911. I'LL call 1911, thank you.


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
Click to expand...

I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.


----------



## Fishlore

SmokeALib said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that
> there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
> In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.
Click to expand...

Your rebuttal, "all leftist bullshit" says all anyone needs to know about you and your theories about guns. Thanks.


----------



## hunarcy

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
Click to expand...


Interesting that you quote a study presented on The National Center for Biotechnology Information's webpage.  I had no idea that this was part of their field of study.  I am SHOCKED that you didn't quote a DOJ study, as it'd seem this was more in their bailiwick.


----------



## Fishlore

The gun crowd is composed of angry little boys of all ages whose defense of America's unique gun situation sheds much heat but little light. It is almost impossible for gun nuts to offer an opinion on the topic without a personal attack on someone. It's tiresome and reflects in its own way the significantly lower education level of the fringe right voter. Why these angry, defensive laddies worship their guns is easy to understand; why we continue to put up with them is less so.


----------



## SmokeALib

Fishlore said:


> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> 
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that
> there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
> In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your rebuttal, "all leftist bullshit" says all anyone needs to know about you and your theories about guns. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Glad to set you straight.


----------



## Fishlore

Ernie S. said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.


----------



## kaz

SmokeALib said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.
> 
> There is the usual _Schadenfreude _over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".
> 
> 
> 
> What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED
> 
> One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear.  The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing.  Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
> I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
> I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
Click to expand...


Fishlore's plan is to lie prostrate on the ground and cry like a baby and see how that works


----------



## kaz

Centinel said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood of illegal guns entering the USA from New Brunswick is a shocking scandal. Those French Cartels have no mercy. We get halberds, muskets, the occasional blunderbus, even Gatling guns! Why just last week authorities nabbed three _voyageurs_ trying to sneak in a British-made brass twelve pounder. We need more alert gun culture experts like you to awaken sleeping Americans to the _real_ cross-border threat. Be on your guard!
> _Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
> Il sait porter la croix!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possessing a gun harms nobody. Criminalizing the possession of a gun is absurd, as no harm has been committed, so there should be no crime.
Click to expand...


Liberals watch too much TV.  they actually believe that guns give off an aura of evil.  So when you have a gun, an argument with your wife in their mind would become a shooting.  If that were true, hammers would have the same effect.  Or a fist.  The idea that a gun would suddenly create violence where otherwise none would exist is the infantile intellect that they are


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> 
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.
Click to expand...


You're full of it, it's illegal for felons to buy guns.  No one is making that legal.  Yet felons get guns anyway without sweat.  That's the point, all you're doing is making it harder for responsible citizens to have them.  And when they are home in your safe, you don't have one.  Note all the shootings in "gun free zones," why do mass shooters keep going to those?


----------



## kaz

SmokeALib said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
> In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.
Click to expand...


Liberals don't want you to protect yourself with a gun, they want you to call government to protect you with guns.  You see, government can use guns in ways that you can't and they aren't affected by the aura of evil like you are, so it's safe for government to use them and not you.  Citizens can't be trusted to do things that government can do better for us.  Government is better than we are at everything.  Which is why they kill blacks with them.  Or that's not why.

Liberals are idiots


----------



## kaz

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> 
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.
Click to expand...


Yes, you mentioned your view that the way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them from legal gun owners who don't commit crimes.  Now do you have an idea that actually makes sense?


----------



## dannyboys

Fishlore said:


> The gun crowd is composed of angry little boys of all ages whose defense of America's unique gun situation sheds much heat but little light. It is almost impossible for gun nuts to offer an opinion on the topic without a personal attack on someone. It's tiresome and reflects in its own way the significantly lower education level of the fringe right voter. Why these angry, defensive laddies worship their guns is easy to understand; why we continue to put up with them is less so.


Ironic you would post: "Without a personal attack on someone" then go on to make a number of personal attacks.
Permanent Ignore 'Laddie'.


----------



## kaz

dannyboys said:


> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun crowd is composed of angry little boys of all ages whose defense of America's unique gun situation sheds much heat but little light. It is almost impossible for gun nuts to offer an opinion on the topic without a personal attack on someone. It's tiresome and reflects in its own way the significantly lower education level of the fringe right voter. Why these angry, defensive laddies worship their guns is easy to understand; why we continue to put up with them is less so.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic you would post: "Without a personal attack on someone" then go on to make a number of personal attacks.
> Permanent Ignore 'Laddie'.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, Fishlore does that all the time, it's a hoot, isn't it?


----------



## Ernie S.

Fishlore said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fishlore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmokeALib said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
> Dumass.
> 
> 
> 
> In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter.   In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.
> 
> That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. *Prove* your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in  preventing a crime.
> I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.
> 
> Put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
> _Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.
> 
> Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less.  Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk.  Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.”  This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
> 
> Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited.  Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors,  individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession._5
> 
> Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless
> 
> 
> _Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998). _
> _Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008). _
> _Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004). _
> _David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004). _
> _Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf_
> Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.
Click to expand...

Look! Anyone who quotes Kellerman is an idiot. Kellerman's study has been refuted by dozens of experts INCLUDING Kellerman himself. Back to ignore.


----------



## danielpalos

Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.



You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.


----------



## kaz

danielpalos said:


> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.



Well regulated means by the militia, not by the government.  Remember we're talking about a freedom from government, not a power of government


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
Click to expand...


Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
Click to expand...


I'm a ho????


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
Click to expand...


The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.

Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?


----------



## easyt65

What's their plan?  Obviously to strip law-abiding citizens of their guns while arming Mexican Drug Cartels and terrorists.


----------



## easyt65

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
Click to expand...

'Thar right shall not be infringed.'

The govt that seeks to strip Americans of that right to bear arms is why we have that right...


----------



## Ernie S.

"Well regulated", at the time meant well trained and well equipped.


----------



## Arizona Willie

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
Click to expand...

========
Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?

I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.

' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
Click to expand...


Why don't you go back and find where I argue that the bill of rights gives government the power to "regulate" guns.  I told the guy he didn't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th Century.  "Well regulated militia" does NOT mean having lots of rules.  It means a workable, effective defense force.

I suggest you read more carefully before calling names.


----------



## hunarcy

Arizona Willie said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
Click to expand...



You sir, are an idiot and should take the time to educate  yourself.  Meaning of the phrase


----------



## Afterword

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.





Short of eliminating all firearms entirely, it is impossible to keep them out of the hands of criminals, as everyone, under the right circumstances, is a potential criminal.


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
Click to expand...




The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.  That is my plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go back and find where I argue that the bill of rights gives government the power to "regulate" guns.  I told the guy he didn't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th Century.  "Well regulated militia" does NOT mean having lots of rules.  It means a workable, effective defense force.
> 
> I suggest you read more carefully before calling names.
Click to expand...


Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but nowhere in that post did I call you a name.  Ironic from the guy who said "I suggest you read more carefully."


----------



## kaz

Afterword said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short of eliminating all firearms entirely, it is impossible to keep them out of the hands of criminals, as everyone, under the right circumstances, is a potential criminal.
Click to expand...


How would you even eliminate them entirely?  There are over 300 million of them in the US, we have an open southern border and frankly they aren't rocket science to build.  We need to start dealing with the reality they are here and aren't going away and stop playing the fantasy game the left play of let's pretend if they make them illegal they will go away.

What's ironic is the left says the same thing to the right about pot ....

This isn't an argument with you, you didn't disagree with that


----------



## Arizona Willie

kaz said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
Click to expand...

========
In order to regulate something you have to have the POWER to enforce your regulations.

Who has the power to enforce regulations on guns other than the government?

Who exactly do you think is going to make these " regulations "?
Who exactly do you think is going to enforce these " regulations "?
How do you think they will enforce these " regulations"?

Why do you hate America and our form of government?
You obviously want some **shadow** government to make and enforce these regulations.

Typical Republican America hater.


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go back and find where I argue that the bill of rights gives government the power to "regulate" guns.  I told the guy he didn't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th Century.  "Well regulated militia" does NOT mean having lots of rules.  It means a workable, effective defense force.
> 
> I suggest you read more carefully before calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but nowhere in that post did I call you a name.  Ironic from the guy who said "I suggest you read more carefully."
Click to expand...


"Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like <the ho> you are?"  Seems like there's some name calling right there.  So, I did read carefully.


----------



## hunarcy

Arizona Willie said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> In order to regulate something you have to have the POWER to enforce your regulations.
> 
> Who has the power to enforce regulations on guns other than the government?
> 
> Who exactly do you think is going to make these " regulations "?
> Who exactly do you think is going to enforce these " regulations "?
> How do you think they will enforce these " regulations"?
> 
> Why do you hate America and our form of government?
> You obviously want some **shadow** government to make and enforce these regulations.
> 
> Typical Republican America hater.
Click to expand...


Is a regulation an infringement?  If so, how does that relate to "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*"?


----------



## hunarcy

easyt65 said:


> What's their plan?  Obviously to strip law-abiding citizens of their guns while arming Mexican Drug Cartels and terrorists.



Seems like an odd thing to do since Obama's Justice Department is arming terrorists in France.  Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came from Phoenix - Judicial Watch


----------



## kaz

Arizona Willie said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> In order to regulate something you have to have the POWER to enforce your regulations.
> 
> Who has the power to enforce regulations on guns other than the government?
> 
> Who exactly do you think is going to make these " regulations "?
> Who exactly do you think is going to enforce these " regulations "?
> How do you think they will enforce these " regulations"?
> 
> Why do you hate America and our form of government?
> You obviously want some **shadow** government to make and enforce these regulations.
> 
> Typical Republican America hater.
Click to expand...


Ouch, Republican.  You are a clever one, aren't you?  You spent how long coming up with that one?

Now that we see your keen intellect.  Maybe why you can explain your view on why in the middle of the Bill of Rights which protects personal liberties, they decided to give in one of the ten amendments the power to government to decide what gun rights we have?

Why bother putting it in there as a personal liberty then say but government will decide what you can do?

I anticipate another slamming insult.  You going to go with right winger or nutter this time.  Wow, those would be clever


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go back and find where I argue that the bill of rights gives government the power to "regulate" guns.  I told the guy he didn't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th Century.  "Well regulated militia" does NOT mean having lots of rules.  It means a workable, effective defense force.
> 
> I suggest you read more carefully before calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but nowhere in that post did I call you a name.  Ironic from the guy who said "I suggest you read more carefully."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like <the ho> you are?"  Seems like there's some name calling right there.  So, I did read carefully.
Click to expand...


What?  I didn't call any names in the post you responded to.  What are you talking about?


----------



## hunarcy

kaz said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you go back and find where I argue that the bill of rights gives government the power to "regulate" guns.  I told the guy he didn't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th Century.  "Well regulated militia" does NOT mean having lots of rules.  It means a workable, effective defense force.
> 
> I suggest you read more carefully before calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but nowhere in that post did I call you a name.  Ironic from the guy who said "I suggest you read more carefully."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like <the ho> you are?"  Seems like there's some name calling right there.  So, I did read carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  I didn't call any names in the post you responded to.  What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Look at post 6688.  Unless you think my name is "ho", you must have been calling me a name.  I assure you I am not a professional.


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you go back and find where I argue that the bill of rights gives government the power to "regulate" guns.  I told the guy he didn't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 18th Century.  "Well regulated militia" does NOT mean having lots of rules.  It means a workable, effective defense force.
> 
> I suggest you read more carefully before calling names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but nowhere in that post did I call you a name.  Ironic from the guy who said "I suggest you read more carefully."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like <the ho> you are?"  Seems like there's some name calling right there.  So, I did read carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  I didn't call any names in the post you responded to.  What are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at post 6688.  Unless you think my name is "ho", you must have been calling me a name.  I assure you I am not a professional.
Click to expand...


I hear it can pay well.  I think I mixed you up with an earlier poster and what yous said had ambiguity.  But I know you're for gun ownership rights.

Though liberals have convinced me of one things.   I think they should weed out liberals who think guns are sex objects, it's sick, frankly.  I think we can do that reasonably on the grounds that thinking guns are sex objects makes them a danger to themselves and others


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
Click to expand...

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.


----------



## Afterword

Any attempt to outlaw firearms would focus also on its component parts – those that comprise the firearm itself and those that comprise the ammunition and any specialized machinery used to produce these items. Legitimate companies would be limited to producing these items for the police, Armed Forces, etc.

The consequences for possessing firearms and ammunition would have to be severe - lengthy prison sentences starting at somewhere around twenty years. The penalty for smuggling these items across our borders would be even harsher, perhaps even life sentences.

The security of our borders adjacent to neighboring countries and oceans would have to be strengthened far beyond what they are today. A large number of special law enforcement agents would be required, with the power to search any home without warrant or probable cause. The existing police across the country would require a strengthening of their forces.  The National Guard and the military would need to be on alert in case of an uprising from pro-gun factions.

Only extreme measures like this would have a chance of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and potential criminals.


It is not a likely scenario.


----------



## hunarcy

Afterword said:


> Any attempt to outlaw firearms would focus also on its component parts – those that comprise the firearm itself and those that comprise the ammunition and any specialized machinery used to produce these items. Legitimate companies would be limited to producing these items for the police, Armed Forces, etc.
> 
> The consequences for possessing firearms and ammunition would have to be severe - lengthy prison sentences starting at somewhere around twenty years. The penalty for smuggling these items across our borders would be even harsher, perhaps even life sentences.
> 
> The security of our borders adjacent to neighboring countries and oceans would have to be strengthened far beyond what they are today. A large number of special law enforcement agents would be required, with the power to search any home without warrant or probable cause. The existing police across the country would require a strengthening of their forces.  The National Guard and the military would need to be on alert in case of an uprising from pro-gun factions.
> 
> Only extreme measures like this would have a chance of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and potential criminals.
> 
> 
> It is not a likely scenario.



Such a limitation would be just as unconstitutional as poll taxes and grandfather clauses...anything that prevents a person from exercising their rights (unless through their own actions and after a due process hearing) is unconstitutional.


----------



## Afterword

hunarcy said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to outlaw firearms would focus also on its component parts – those that comprise the firearm itself and those that comprise the ammunition and any specialized machinery used to produce these items. Legitimate companies would be limited to producing these items for the police, Armed Forces, etc.
> 
> The consequences for possessing firearms and ammunition would have to be severe - lengthy prison sentences starting at somewhere around twenty years. The penalty for smuggling these items across our borders would be even harsher, perhaps even life sentences.
> 
> The security of our borders adjacent to neighboring countries and oceans would have to be strengthened far beyond what they are today. A large number of special law enforcement agents would be required, with the power to search any home without warrant or probable cause. The existing police across the country would require a strengthening of their forces.  The National Guard and the military would need to be on alert in case of an uprising from pro-gun factions.
> 
> Only extreme measures like this would have a chance of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and potential criminals.
> 
> 
> It is not a likely scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a limitation would be just as unconstitutional as poll taxes and grandfather clauses...anything that prevents a person from exercising their rights (unless through their own actions and after a due process hearing) is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...



Like I said: "It is not a likely scenario." However, I would not be so certain that it could never happen.


----------



## candycorn

Elect Hillary


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
Click to expand...


I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> Elect Hillary



I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs


----------



## Contumacious

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.




Their "plan" is to disarm *ALL law abiding citizens.*

*.*


.


----------



## kaz

Contumacious said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their "plan" is to disarm *ALL law abiding citizens.*
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yep, they don't care about criminals.  They want to disarm anyone who could oppose their suckling at government tits


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs
Click to expand...


We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.
Click to expand...


Hate and bigotry?  Who do I hate and who am I biased against?  Sounds like you're the one projecting.

kaz:  Everyone deserves an equal opportunity

candy:  Wow, what hate and bigotry!!!!!!!!!

Yeah


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate and bigotry?  Who do I hate and who am I biased against?  Sounds like you're the one projecting.
> 
> kaz:  Everyone deserves an equal opportunity
> 
> candy:  Wow, what hate and bigotry!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yeah
Click to expand...


Are you voting for Trump?


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate and bigotry?  Who do I hate and who am I biased against?  Sounds like you're the one projecting.
> 
> kaz:  Everyone deserves an equal opportunity
> 
> candy:  Wow, what hate and bigotry!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yeah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you voting for Trump?
Click to expand...


This just in, Kaz endorses ...

Why I will not now or ever advocate, argue for or endorse Trump


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elect Hillary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate and bigotry?  Who do I hate and who am I biased against?  Sounds like you're the one projecting.
> 
> kaz:  Everyone deserves an equal opportunity
> 
> candy:  Wow, what hate and bigotry!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yeah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you voting for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in, Kaz endorses ...
> 
> Why I will not now or ever advocate, argue for or endorse Trump
Click to expand...


Is Trump the GOP nominee for President?


----------



## kaz

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd agree to electing her dog catcher except I don't want to do that to dogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hate and bigotry?  Who do I hate and who am I biased against?  Sounds like you're the one projecting.
> 
> kaz:  Everyone deserves an equal opportunity
> 
> candy:  Wow, what hate and bigotry!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yeah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you voting for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in, Kaz endorses ...
> 
> Why I will not now or ever advocate, argue for or endorse Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Trump the GOP nominee for President?
Click to expand...


Yes.  And?


----------



## candycorn

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll install her as President.  Don't worry, you don't need to do anything except keep on doing what you have been.  American, when asked, almost always reject hate and bigotry which happen to be the names of the two horses pulling the GOP chariot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate and bigotry?  Who do I hate and who am I biased against?  Sounds like you're the one projecting.
> 
> kaz:  Everyone deserves an equal opportunity
> 
> candy:  Wow, what hate and bigotry!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Yeah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you voting for Trump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This just in, Kaz endorses ...
> 
> Why I will not now or ever advocate, argue for or endorse Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is Trump the GOP nominee for President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  And?
Click to expand...


Ahh yes, the stable master for Bigotry (about Mexicans he says, "I assume some are good people."  and now he jokes about "2nd Amendment Folk" who may want to eliminate the HRC.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a ho????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
Click to expand...

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
Click to expand...


I'm not clear what you're arguing


----------



## hunarcy

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid.  Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.
> 
> Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
Click to expand...


No, the members of the militia elected their own officers.  How can you not know that?


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what you're arguing
Click to expand...

Not arguing...
The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.


----------



## Ernie S.

hunarcy said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona Willie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you seem when you claim " Regulated doesn't mean government regulations." Who the hell else is going to regulate things if it isn't the government?
> 
> I always knew you gun masturbaters were nuts and now you've proved it.
> 
> ' Regulation doesn't mean regulation ' is what the man claims. haw haw haaw haw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the members of the militia elected their own officers.  How can you not know that?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what you're arguing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not arguing...
> The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean "arguing" that way.  In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.

So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making.  Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not?  According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia.  That was driven by the people, not the State


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the members of the militia elected their own officers.  How can you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
> The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
Click to expand...

Patrick Henry:  "The militia is our ultimate safety, We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun." 

I'm still not seeing your point.  That does not say the government can decide if you are a militia or not.  Furthermore, the 2nd doesn't say you have to be in a militia to have a gun.  It says because A, B.  It does not say if A, B.  Entirely different things.

Second Amendment:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what you're arguing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not arguing...
> The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mean "arguing" that way.  In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.
> 
> So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making.  Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not?  According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia.  That was driven by the people, not the State
Click to expand...

Technically, yes. The government does define the militias in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, though, that is not what was meant by "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> 
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what you're arguing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not arguing...
> The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mean "arguing" that way.  In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.
> 
> So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making.  Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not?  According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia.  That was driven by the people, not the State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, yes. The government does define the militias in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, though, that is not what was meant by "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment
Click to expand...


So the point you are making regarding the second amendment is?


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the members of the militia elected their own officers.  How can you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
> The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patrick Henry:  "The militia is our ultimate safety, We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun."
> 
> I'm still not seeing your point.  That does not say the government can decide if you are a militia or not.  Furthermore, the 2nd doesn't say you have to be in a militia to have a gun.  It says because A, B.  It does not say if A, B.  Entirely different things.
> 
> Second Amendment:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

We're mostly on the same page here. The Founders wanted a ready Army but not a standing army. They stated the need for a militia, but left to the states how it was administered.
This in no way limits the right of the individual to keep and bear arms


----------



## Ernie S.

kaz said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not clear what you're arguing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not arguing...
> The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mean "arguing" that way.  In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.
> 
> So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making.  Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not?  According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia.  That was driven by the people, not the State
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, yes. The government does define the militias in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, though, that is not what was meant by "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the point you are making regarding the second amendment is?
Click to expand...

Simply a clarification of a statement you made in the first post I replied to.


----------



## Contumacious

kaz said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their "plan" is to disarm *ALL law abiding citizens.*
> 
> *.*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, they don't care about criminals.  They want to disarm anyone who could oppose their suckling at government tits
Click to expand...



Actually, once Killary appoint "justices" who are criminal enough to claim that Americans never had an individual right to bear arms , we will ALL be criminals. The prison population will increase ten fold.


----------



## Ernie S.

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."


----------



## Contumacious

Ernie S. said:


> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."




*So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*

WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.


.


----------



## Ernie S.

Contumacious said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*
> 
> WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I thought I made that all quite clear.


----------



## Contumacious

Ernie S. said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*
> 
> WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought I made that all quite clear.
Click to expand...



*Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama*


.


----------



## KissMy

Contumacious said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
Click to expand...


*The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list. Including the untrained in the list will provide cover for other types on the list.*


----------



## Conservative65

KissMy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
Click to expand...


The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.


----------



## KissMy

Conservative65 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.
Click to expand...


This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.


----------



## Conservative65

KissMy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that
> is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.
Click to expand...


Too much politics.


----------



## Ernie S.

Contumacious said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*
> 
> WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought I made that all quite clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I believe I've heard the song (twice today) It is the National Anthem of my state. We stand and place our hands over our hearts when it plays.


----------



## Ernie S.

KissMy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list. Including the untrained in the list will provide cover for other types on the list.*
Click to expand...

You see, registered sex offenders have committed crimes that got them on that list. The NICS maintains a list of people who have committed certain crimes or have been judged mentally incompetent. These people cannot legally purchase a firearm, nor can terrorists or illegal aliens. The rest of us do have certain rights to privacy. The same right Liberals use to justify tearing an unborn child from the uterus  keeps you from publishing a list accessible to the general public containing names of people untrained in the use of firearms and others your ilk decides might be an impediment to you disregarding the rest of the Constitution. The Supreme court has ruled on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Your discomfort with that ruling is irrelevant.


----------



## Ernie S.

KissMy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.
Click to expand...

Any time Congress gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't, it becomes subject to the will of the party in power. Any Congressional restriction or executive order would likely be overturned by SCOTUS. 
THEY have the ultimate power though.
Let's say a democrat appoints 3 Supreme Court justices. The individual right to bear arms is threatened and Heller might be overturned. You'd love that, I suppose, but what if a Conservative gets to pick the next 3 justices? Wave goodbye to Roe V Wade.


----------



## hunarcy

Ernie S. said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything.  There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government.  What government school gave you your crappy education?
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
> A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree obviously.  The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."  That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government.  And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either.  It's the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the members of the militia elected their own officers.  How can you not know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
> The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
Click to expand...


LOL!  Even in the organized militia which was controlled by Congress, the soldiers selected their own officers.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Well, another few bite the dust, yawn ...
> 
> County sheriff: Multiple deaths, injuries Kansas attacks
> 
> To bad a few dozen by-standers didn't have AR 15's, it could have really been interesting.  As it stands, it's just a run-of-the-mill standard murder of a bunch of people who went to work and will never go home.  As I wrote, yawn.
> 
> BTW, I wonder if the shooter was a criminal before he went hunting today?



So you still keep repeating your canard that we need gun control.   Were ... is ... your ... proposal?  How are you going to take guns from ... criminals?  So far all you've advocated is taking guns from everyone else


----------



## kaz

Ernie S. said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any time Congress gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't, it becomes subject to the will of the party in power. Any Congressional restriction or executive order would likely be overturned by SCOTUS.
> THEY have the ultimate power though.
> Let's say a democrat appoints 3 Supreme Court justices. The individual right to bear arms is threatened and Heller might be overturned. You'd love that, I suppose, but what if a Conservative gets to pick the next 3 justices? Wave goodbye to Roe V Wade.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Sadly the Supreme Court is just the politically driven American Politburo now imposing the will of their political party


----------



## kaz

KissMy said:


> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.*



As long as you mean removing their rights with due process of law, I agree.  If you're advocating government can just decide someone can't get a gun without proving it in a court of law, then I don't.  Not sure which you mean, just clarifying


----------



## kaz

KissMy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.
Click to expand...


Yes, congress "sets the standard," but again, that standard has to be proven in court to remove someone's Constitutional rights, any of them


----------



## kaz

ChairmanGonzalo



kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.




So that's my OP post for your convenience.  What say you?  What's the plan?  Love to hear it.


----------



## MikeK

The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.


----------



## CowboyTed

MikeK said:


> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.



Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?

How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...


----------



## Wry Catcher

MikeK said:


> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.



The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT! 

The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Q.  How many mass killers have criminal records

Q.  How many crimes for profit had been committed  by guns?


----------



## MikeK

Wry Catcher said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!
> 
> The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.
Click to expand...

I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed.  But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.

If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding.  But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them. 

So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking?  And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun?  Gun laws disarm _you_ -- but not him.


----------



## hunarcy

CowboyTed said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?
> 
> How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...
Click to expand...


Because most of the police in the UK do not carry firearms.


----------



## hunarcy

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  How many mass killers have criminal records
> 
> Most did not, but most were known suffer from some sort of mental issue.
> 
> Q.  How many crimes for profit had been committed  by guns?
> 
> Not as many as have been committed with pens and computers.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  How many mass killers have criminal records
> 
> Q.  How many crimes for profit had been committed  by guns?


Mass killings account for less than 1% of all murders so even if you could magically stop mass killings the change in the murder rate would be negligible


----------



## Wry Catcher

MikeK said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!
> 
> The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed.  But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.
> 
> If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding.  But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.
> 
> So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking?  And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun?  Gun laws disarm _you_ -- but not him.
Click to expand...


If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.

How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?


----------



## MikeK

Wry Catcher said:


> If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.
> 
> How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?


We are talking about availability, not misuse.

Obviously the gun laws haven't prevented criminals from obtaining guns.  They prevent the law-abiding citizen from carrying them to defend themselves and others (presuming they are properly trained).  

I was armed for 23 years when I lived in New York City.  Now I live in New Jersey and I'm unable to obtain a carry permit -- even though I am at least as well-trained as most cops and have a pristine background.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!
> 
> The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed.  But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.
> 
> If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding.  But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.
> 
> So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking?  And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun?  Gun laws disarm _you_ -- but not him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.
> 
> How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?
Click to expand...

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
Almost 70% of murderers have a prior conviction

And when talking death by firearm please exclude suicide as suicide is not a crime it is a choice


----------



## Wry Catcher

Skull Pilot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!
> 
> The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed.  But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.
> 
> If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding.  But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.
> 
> So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking?  And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun?  Gun laws disarm _you_ -- but not him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.
> 
> How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
> Almost 70% of murderers have a prior conviction
> 
> And when talking death by firearm please exclude suicide as suicide is not a crime it is a choice
Click to expand...


I looked over your link, my initial reaction is you attempted to_ baffle 'em with bullshit_.  The question you did not respond to was this:

*How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime? 

*


----------



## MikeK

Wry Catcher said:


> I looked over your link, my initial reaction is you attempted to_ baffle 'em with bullshit_.  The question you did not respond to was this:
> 
> *How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?*


We're not discussing the sociological aspects of criminality but rather the effect of gun laws on the criminal use of guns.  One outstanding example of the futility of most prohibitive gun laws is the level of gun violence in ghetto communities (outstandingly Chicago) the vast majority of which is perpetrated by young Black males -- none of whom have gun permits but obviously have guns.  That fact alone should convince you that prohibitive gun laws are approximately as effective as are prohibitive drug laws and serve mainly to impede the law-abiding.  

That is the only point I wish to make.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Wry Catcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!
> 
> The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a state where I cannot obtain a carry permit, so because I am law-abiding I am unarmed.  But if I were inclined to ignore the law, as many dangerous criminals do, I would be armed.
> 
> If I owned a rifle which accommodated a 30-round magazine I could not own such a magazine because I am law-abiding.  But if I had contempt for the law I would have three or four of them.
> 
> So what aspect of the Brady/Obama anti-gun brainwash has influenced your thinking?  And what good are prohibitive gun laws if you are confronted by some violence-prone character with an illegal gun?  Gun laws disarm _you_ -- but not him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I take the meaning of unarmed, as I do in your case, it means you are witless.
> 
> How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
> Almost 70% of murderers have a prior conviction
> 
> And when talking death by firearm please exclude suicide as suicide is not a crime it is a choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked over your link, my initial reaction is you attempted to_ baffle 'em with bullshit_.  The question you did not respond to was this:
> 
> *How many deaths by firearm are committed by "criminals" as opposed to those who have never been convicted of a crime?
> *
Click to expand...


What part of almost 70% did you not understand?


----------



## owebo

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  How many mass killers have criminal records
> 
> Q.  How many crimes for profit had been committed  by guns?


Q.  How many mass shooters were liberals.....


----------



## MikeK

CowboyTed said:


> Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?


The U.S. and European nations are totally different cultures.  America was born in a cloud of rebellious gunsmoke and guns thus became an endemic component of our culture



> How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...


The main reason for that difference is, with certain exceptions cops in the U.K. are not armed with guns.  

Re: your reference to the racial disparity in the U.S., do you agree or disagree that Blacks in America are substantially more prone to violent behavior than are Whites?


----------



## KissMy

kaz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."
> 
> 
> 
> *So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?
> 
> It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.
> 
> There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of  mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable?  Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal.  They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, congress "sets the standard," but again, that standard has to be proven in court to remove someone's Constitutional rights, any of them
Click to expand...


Sorry, but “well-regulated” doesn't mean you have a right until it's removed by a court!

There is absolutely no way "a well regulated militia" means emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained get guns unless a court says they can't. The entire U.S. population cannot — _cannot_ — be a well regulated militia.

"A well regulated Militia” means well functioning mind, well trained, well functioning controlled unit. “well-regulated” can also means you must earn the right!

If your parent or a neighbor tells the FBI that you are a terrorist & they put you on a no fly list & terror watch list, “well-regulated” regulations can definitely take away your guns, drivers license & vehicles.

“well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" ... “A well-regulated” are the first & most important words of the second amendment. They are the heart that all the other words of the second amendment center around.


----------



## Windship

What if there was a war and only one side had guns? Who would win? The criminal would.


----------



## KissMy

Windship said:


> What if there was a war and only one side had guns? Who would win? The criminal would.



That's why I don't care to much for tight regulation that force you to earn the rights, pay fees, carry insurance & permits. We don't need to turn good CCW people into criminals because their papers weren't in order.

There should only be restrictions placed on people on terror list, no-fly list, criminals, emotionally unstable, mental defectives, etc. 

Come January 1, 2017 here in Missouri we can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense without a permit from the government. I love that. I just want a online list of people to watch out for.


----------



## owebo

KissMy said:


> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if there was a war and only one side had guns? Who would win? The criminal would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I don't care to much for tight regulation that force you to earn the rights, pay fees, carry insurance & permits. We don't need to turn good CCW people into criminals because their papers weren't in order.
> 
> There should only be restrictions placed on people on terror list, no-fly list, criminals, emotionally unstable, mental defectives, etc.
> 
> Come January 1, 2017 here in Missouri we can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense without a permit from the government. I love that. I just want a online list of people to watch out for.
Click to expand...

So you don't want democrats to have guns....I like that idea.....


----------



## Norman

Criminals need to be armed so that they can defend themselves against the misogynist cops.


----------



## KissMy

owebo said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windship said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if there was a war and only one side had guns? Who would win? The criminal would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I don't care to much for tight regulation that force you to earn the rights, pay fees, carry insurance & permits. We don't need to turn good CCW people into criminals because their papers weren't in order.
> 
> There should only be restrictions placed on people on terror list, no-fly list, criminals, emotionally unstable, mental defectives, etc.
> 
> Come January 1, 2017 here in Missouri we can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense without a permit from the government. I love that. I just want a online list of people to watch out for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't want democrats to have guns....I like that idea.....
Click to expand...


No! - I don't want unstable people to have guns. They will kill you before an armed robber will.

Just last week my best friend was highway robbed at gunpoint by an armed robber. He even took a swing at the robber with the gun before eventually handing over $100. He did not get shot.


----------



## kaz

KissMy said:


> Sorry, but “well-regulated” doesn't mean you have a right until it's removed by a court!



Well, only if you believe in silly things like the fifth amendment where your rights can only be deprived with due process of law



KissMy said:


> There is absolutely no way "a well regulated militia" means emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained get guns unless a court says they can't. The entire U.S. population cannot — _cannot_ — be a well regulated militia.
> 
> "A well regulated Militia” means well functioning mind, well trained, well functioning controlled unit.



That all is reasonable.  So if that's the case, you should be able to provide due process and prove it in a court of law.  If it's your opinion, that's not good enough



KissMy said:


> “well-regulated” can also means you must earn the right!


What the fuck?  So they put in the Constitution that you have that right.  Well, if you earn it.  Government can't infringe on your right to arms, they just have to give it to you if you "earn it."  Think about that



KissMy said:


> If your parent or a neighbor tells the FBI that you are a terrorist & they put you on a no fly list & terror watch list, “well-regulated” regulations can definitely take away your guns, drivers license & vehicles.


Drivers licenses are not in the Constitution.  You have no "right" to drive on government roads.  Your guns are protected by the 2nd and 5th amendments however and your vehicles by the 5th amendment



KissMy said:


> “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" ... “A well-regulated” are the first & most important words of the second amendment. They are the heart that all the other words of the second amendment center around.


Try reading the second amendment again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Try overcoming your government education and reading it more carefully.  Notice that "well regulated militia" is offered as an explanation, not a condition. It is saying because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, your right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, it does not say if you have a well regulated militia, you right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

And again , think about what you are saying.  They put in the Bill of Right a "right" that can be granted or denied at the whim of government?  You have no judicial protection for?  Well, their neighbor said blah, so government took it away?  No court?  Well, you didn't "earn" it as deemed by government? Seriously, that's what you think?  

The Bill of Rights says all powers not granted to the government are reserved by the States or the people.  Speech, press, religion, due process, warrants.  Oh, let's chuck in one we don't really mean though and make it #2.  Yeah ...


----------



## kaz

CowboyTed said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?
> 
> How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...
Click to expand...


There are a lot of differences between the US and Europe.   To just conclude that it's gun laws is so completely and utterly shallow.  It's so you.  Why don't you answer my OP question?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Statement,  "The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding" is total BULLSHIT!
> 
> The statement, quoted above is made by fools, echoing other fools who echo the propaganda of the NRA.
Click to expand...


No it isn't, wow, the intellectual horsepower to come up with that.

So all background checks do is have the gun seller say no, can't let you buy the gun.  There is no consequence.  So the criminals can go from shop to shop, seller to seller until they get a yes.  So how is that not an infringement on anyone but law abiding citizens?

And you still have no answer to the OP question.  Right now, drug dealers are streaming in drugs.  What prevents them from putting guns in their drug shipments and selling those to criminals?  You still oppose security on our southern border, you undercut your own argment


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  How many mass killers have criminal records
> 
> Q.  How many crimes for profit had been committed  by guns?



How many of those crimes for profit were committed by legal guns?  Mostly not.  Again showing you're only infringing on the rights of honest citizens, and we want the guns to protect ourselves.

What a stupid plan.  You see, it's a bad situation if you have a gun to protect yourself.  I'm going to help you by taking away your gun so that only the criminal has one.  You're welcome.  

Gee, thanks


----------



## kaz

hunarcy said:


> CowboyTed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is gun laws operate to deprive mainly the law-abiding.  Any criminal who wants a gun and is capable of paying the black market price can obtain one.  Illegal guns move through the same channels as do illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain why gun crime in Europe is far lower?
> 
> How is 98.8 times a citizen in US gets shot dead by the police than in the UK? Thats a hundred times.... 70 times if you're white...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because most of the police in the UK do not carry firearms.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that's true anymore.  And it's because so many more of the criminals are armed than they used to be.

We're following Europe in becoming socialist.

As their populations become more ethnically and culturally diverse, guns are becoming more widespread and gun violence is rising as well


----------



## MikeK

KissMy said:


> [...]
> 
> Come January 1, 2017 here in Missouri we can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense without a permit from the government. I love that.
> 
> [...]


I love that, too.  Living in New Jersey, which has some of the most repressive gun laws in the U.S., I envy your new freedom.  The question I have is will those who now intend to carry be required to have some minimal level of training.   Because if not there surely will be problems.  

I'm not talking about how to shoot but _when_ to shoot.


----------



## KissMy

kaz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but “well-regulated” doesn't mean you have a right until it's removed by a court!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, only if you believe in silly things like the fifth amendment where your rights can only be deprived with due process of law
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no way "a well regulated militia" means emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained get guns unless a court says they can't. The entire U.S. population cannot — _cannot_ — be a well regulated militia.
> 
> "A well regulated Militia” means well functioning mind, well trained, well functioning controlled unit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That all is reasonable.  So if that's the case, you should be able to provide due process and prove it in a court of law.  If it's your opinion, that's not good enough
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> “well-regulated” can also means you must earn the right!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck?  So they put in the Constitution that you have that right.  Well, if you earn it.  Government can't infringe on your right to arms, they just have to give it to you if you "earn it."  Think about that
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your parent or a neighbor tells the FBI that you are a terrorist & they put you on a no fly list & terror watch list, “well-regulated” regulations can definitely take away your guns, drivers license & vehicles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drivers licenses are not in the Constitution.  You have no "right" to drive on government roads.  Your guns are protected by the 2nd and 5th amendments however and your vehicles by the 5th amendment
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" ... “A well-regulated” are the first & most important words of the second amendment. They are the heart that all the other words of the second amendment center around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading the second amendment again:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Try overcoming your government education and reading it more carefully.  Notice that "well regulated militia" is offered as an explanation, not a condition. It is saying because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, your right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, it does not say if you have a well regulated militia, you right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> And again , think about what you are saying.  They put in the Bill of Right a "right" that can be granted or denied at the whim of government?  You have no judicial protection for?  Well, their neighbor said blah, so government took it away?  No court?  Well, you didn't "earn" it as deemed by government? Seriously, that's what you think?
> 
> The Bill of Rights says all powers not granted to the government are reserved by the States or the people.  Speech, press, religion, due process, warrants.  Oh, let's chuck in one we don't really mean though and make it #2.  Yeah ...
Click to expand...


Armed crazies & criminals are also infringing on my rights & freedoms. I have been held at gunpoint & nearly shot 6 times. My Best friend has had the same 3 times. These criminals need to be stopped. It can't be done by being armed alone, In every instance the criminal had the drop on us before we knew what was happening. Being armed would not have prevented any of them. I may have been able to do something afterwards with a gun, but that also may not have gone well. Background checks prevented 152,850 crazies & criminals from buying a gun in 2010 alone. The real problem is few of those are arrested & prosecuted.

If a few neighbors, friends & family are not honest when reporting someone causing them to lose their gun rights, they can remedy it with investigating, testing or courts. To many mass killers were known to be wacko, prior to committing murders, but nothing could be done, because we protected their rights more strongly than those lives that were taken.

There will never be enough police to stop criminals. The people must have easy access to the list of crazies to keep an eye on them, so they can't infringe on my life, liberty, property, freedom & pursuit of happiness. We already publish list of sex offenders. It's high time to do the same for Terrorist, Crazies & Criminals.


----------



## KissMy

MikeK said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> Come January 1, 2017 here in Missouri we can carry a concealed firearm for self-defense without a permit from the government. I love that.
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> I love that, too.  Living in New Jersey, which has some of the most repressive gun laws in the U.S., I envy your new freedom.  The question I have is will those who now intend to carry be required to have some minimal level of training.   Because if not there surely will be problems.
> 
> I'm not talking about how to shoot but _when_ to shoot.
Click to expand...

It seems there will not be any required training. It was like that here in Missouri rural area where I grew up back before Brady bill & all the new laws. It seemed like shootings per capita were high out there. I was nearly shot & held at gunpoint 3 times back then. I Mostly live in St. Louis now but it still happens here with current laws, but the per capita rate is now less.


----------



## MikeK

KissMy said:


> Armed crazies & criminals are also infringing on my rights & freedoms. I have been held at gunpoint & nearly shot 6 times. My Best friend has had the same 3 times.
> 
> [...]


Yours is an exceptional situation so you obviously need more than a gun.  

Since you obviously live in a lawless region what is needed are armed citizen vigilante groups to conduct decoy operations and start killing those bastards off.  But a major problem today rests with the police who can't eliminate the armed criminals but who won't hesitate to arrest armed citizens who "take the law into their own hands."  



> These criminals need to be stopped. It can't be done by being armed alone,


Not as individuals within the highly unusual situation you've described.  You need to organize and train vigilante strike groups to put the fear of God into the gangs.  But to do that you will need the quiet, unspoken cooperation of the police.



> Background checks prevented 152,850 crazies & criminals from buying a gun in 2010 alone.


You don't know that every one of those 152,850 individuals whose background checks disqualified them are crazy or criminally inclined.  But you may rest assured that a substantial percentage of those who are crazy or outlaws and who cannot obtain a gun legally will get what they want on the black market.   



> If a few neighbors, friends & family are not honest when reporting someone causing them to lose their gun rights, they can remedy it with investigating, testing or courts. To many mass killers were known to be wacko, prior to committing murders, but nothing could be done, because we protected their rights more strongly than those lives that were taken.
> 
> There will never be enough police to stop criminals. The people must have easy access to the list of crazies to keep an eye on them, so they can't infringe on my life, liberty, property, freedom & pursuit of happiness. We already publish list of sex offenders. It's high time to do the same for Terrorist, Crazies & Criminals.


If the currently repressive gun laws were never enacted the vast majority of violent criminals and dangerous crazies would have been eliminated by now.  Repressive gun laws have protected the crazies and the criminals from decent, law-abiding, armed citizens.  

Repressive gun laws accommodate the armed criminal element.


----------



## KissMy

Here a few miles from Ferguson MO is not a lawless region. We have to use all opportunities to stop armed thugs. To many are allowed to slip through the system with all these rights.

We try like hell here. Every one of those Ferguson riot thugs brought before the grand jury got indicted. We have to allow citizens tools like list to better monitor them & make it easier to take their gun rights even if only temporary.


----------



## KissMy

Stop & Frisk is useless if everyone has the right to carry.


----------



## MikeK

KissMy said:


> Here a few miles from Ferguson MO is not a lawless region. We have to use all opportunities to stop armed thugs. To many are allowed to slip through the system with all these rights.
> 
> We try like hell here. Every one of those Ferguson riot thugs brought before the grand jury got indicted. We have to allow citizens tools like list to better monitor them & make it easier to take their gun rights even if only temporary.


If you take away a determined criminals gun rights he will laugh in your face and buy an illegal gun.  The only viable solution to the armed criminal problem in a democratic society is to increase the number of armed law-abiding citizens.  

We Americans have been too damn conditioned to the notion that the police will protect us from everything, which we're beginning to see is not the case.  We need to start *protecting ourselves* from the violence-prone "knockout" artists who are taking over our streets -- along with the coming plague of violence-prone Muslim refugees.  And the way to do that is to do away with the repressive CCW laws.  We need more armed law-abiding citizens on the streets, protecting themselves and others who are not as capable.  

I need the cops to watch my house when I'm not home and things of that nature.  As far as my presence on the streets, as long as I'm armed I am quite capable of protecting myself.  I don't need cops for that.  All I need is a 2" .357 revolver.


----------



## KissMy

You have obviously never been shot at or held at gunpoint. It's nothing like TV.


----------



## MikeK

KissMy said:


> You have obviously never been shot at or held at gunpoint. It's nothing like TV.


Really?  

What makes it so obvious to you?


----------



## KissMy

MikeK said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never been shot at or held at gunpoint. It's nothing like TV.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> What makes it so obvious to you?
Click to expand...


Your statement : "I am quite capable of protecting myself. I don't need cops for that. All I need is a 2" .357 revolver."

That is not your best option when held at gunpoint or shot at, So it's not all you need.

A gun a good option if you see someone else being held at gunpoint.


----------



## MikeK

KissMy said:


> Your statement : "I am quite capable of protecting myself. I don't need cops for that. All I need is a 2" .357 revolver."
> 
> That is not your best option when held at gunpoint or shot at, So it's not all you need.
> 
> A gun a good option if you see someone else being held at gunpoint.


It's a far better option than depending on cops to be exactly _where_ you need them, exactly _when_ you need them, which simply is not possible.  So unless you can think of something more,  aside from a hired team of armed bodyguards, then a good gun is what the ordinary individual needs in a threatening encounter. 

The number of armed citizens who manage to defend themselves against criminals every year says having a gun is a better option than not having one.  And if for some reason it can't work for you it's still better to try and to fail than to not try at all -- which works to the criminals' general advantage.


----------



## kaz

We never did get a plan from leftists.  When I say it's a stupid idea to only allow criminals to have guns, leftists like creeptus melt down and say that's not what liberals want!  Well, you're bring it up again, get rid of honest citizens having guns.

So, 

1) We outlaw guns
2) Honest citizens don't have them

...

What is the path to 3 where criminals don't have them either?   You never did explain how that happens.  So?


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws.   I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
> 
> In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want.   There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world.  So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
> 
> So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade.  The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.



My OP from September 20, 2013

2aguy

I never got a straight answer


----------

